THE
FIRST
PERIOD
.
THIS
Period
shall
containe
the
first
and
second
sections
of
S.
Humfreys
way
,
and
I
resolued
to
ioyne
them
together
,
by
reason
I
finde
litle
matter
of
doctrine
in
them
,
as
being
rather
in
the
nature
of
preamble
or
introduction
,
and
consequently
of
too
small
substance
for
a
scholler
to
insist
vpon
.
In
his
first
section
he
purposed
to
prooue
and
disprooue
the
bitternesse
of
the
Church
of
Roome
towards
the
reformed
Churches
,
but
he
bringeth
verie
little
or
nothing
to
that
purpose
,
onely
citing
for
his
demonstration
of
the
same
some
vnchristian
speeches
as
he
tearmeth
them
,
vttered
by
father
Campian
in
his
first
reason
.
She
tearmes
vs
(
saith
S.
Humfrey
,
meaning
the
Roman
Church
)
Heretiques
,
Hellhounds
of
Zwinglius
,
Luthers
whelpes
,
Turkish
Hugonotes
,
damned
persons
,
and
worse
then
Infidells
,
which
wordes
if
they
weare
truly
related
I
must
needes
confesse
include
no
small
acrimony
,
but
I
hauing
diligently
read
ouer
on
purpose
Campians
first
reason
,
I
finde
not
them
all
there
,
nay
nor
yet
the
greater
part
of
them
,
nor
any
other
equiualent
vnto
them
.
I
finde
indeede
he
speaketh
sharpely
against
Luther
and
Caluin
and
he
tearmeth
them
and
others
whom
he
citeth
,
to
giue
her
children
little
or
no
sincere
milke
out
of
her
two
breasts
,
the
two
testaments
,
and
that
she
doth
dayly
practise
spirituall
fornication
,
and
that
she
hath
plaid
the
Harlot
with
a
greate
H.
and
finally
taxing
her
that
she
mainetayneth
and
practiseth
manifest
and
manifould
Idolatry
,
and
that
her
title
is
vsurpation
her
deuotion
is
superstition
,
and
she
her selfe
a
professed
enemy
to
the
ghospell
,
from
whence
you
may
inferre
what
a
sencelesse
blindenesse
this
was
in
the
knight
,
to
dedicate
the
first
chapter
of
his
booke
to
the
disproouing
of
the
bitternes
of
the
Roman
Church
,
he
himselfe
hauing
spent
a
greate
parte
of
it
in
rayling
against
her
,
and
also
you
may
perceaue
how
importunely
he
accuseth
her
of
malignitie
and
want
of
desire
to
quench
the
vnquenchable
broyles
of
the
Church
as
he
tearmeth
them
,
whilest
he
himselfe
through
his
exasperating
speches
,
asmuch
as
in
him
lyeth
,
putteth
no
small
impediment
to
the
extinguishing
of
the
same
,
as
the
reader
may
plainely
perceaue
,
and
notwithstanding
he
compareth
the
Roman
Church
and
his
owne
to
two
sisters
(
which
comparison
allthough
it
be
very
fond
and
absurd
in
it selfe
for
that
the
true
Church
being
but
one
onely
spouse
of
Christ
,
she
can
admitte
no
sister
nor
Corriuall
according
to
the
meaning
of
the
holy
Spirit
in
the
Canticles
affirming
his
spouse
to
be
one
,
(
VNA
ES
SPONSA
MEA
)
neuertheles
he
must
needes
be
conuinced
to
haue
proceeded
most
preposterously
in
this
matter
,
and
contrary
to
all
reason
,
in
that
hee
intending
or
at
least
pretending
to
shew
there
ought
to
be
loue
&
vnion
betwene
them
as
betwene
two
sisters
descending
from
one
and
the
same
catholique
and
vniuersall
mother
as
he
calleth
her
,
yet
as
it
were
with
one
&
the
same
,
breath
he
accuseth
the
same
Roman
Church
to
haue
beene
the
onely
cause
of
separation
;
and
carrieth
the
busines
in
such
a
rough
and
vncivill
fashion
towards
her
,
giuing
her
such
greate
occasions
of
new
disgusts
,
that
it
plainely
appeereth
he
doth
rather
demonstrate
his
owne
bitternesse
&
rancour
towards
her
,
then
with
any
probable
argument
shew
any
such
disposition
to
remaine
in
her
against
any
such
vnion
as
hee
pretendeth
to
desire
.
Why
then
doth
S.
Humfrey
complaine
of
that
which
is
in
a
farre
worse
manner
practised
by
himselfe
and
his
owne
brothers
?
besides
this
I
pray
you
doth
the
supposed
bitternesse
of
F.
Campian
proue
the
bitternesse
of
the
Roman
Church
?
could
he
alone
bee
the
whole
Roman
Church
who
was
but
one
onely
member
of
it
?
Or
are
his
speeches
or
priuate
positions
to
be
attributed
to
the
whole
Church
,
he
being
but
one
parte
thereof
and
yet
not
the
greatest
?
what
a
false
Metonymie
is
this
?
if
the
head
of
the
Church
had
vsed
such
speeches
you
would
haue
seemed
to
haue
had
some
reason
to
haue
attributed
them
to
the
whole
,
because
that
which
the
head
doth
may
induce
a
denomination
vppon
the
rest
of
the
body
,
of
which
examples
may
be
found
euen
in
nature
,
but
whatsoeuer
any
other
member
doth
,
it
cannot
rightly
be
attributed
to
the
whole
.
So
that
we
now
see
that
in
this
allegation
S.
Humfrey
himselfe
doth
so
carrie
the
matter
,
and
giueth
the
Church
of
Roome
euen
in
this
same
section
,
so
much
occasion
of
new
disgusts
as
besides
the
rehearsed
calumnies
taxing
her
with
creation
of
12.
new
Articles
and
coyning
of
new
expositions
vpon
the
ould
,
farre
different
from
the
doctrine
of
the
Apostles
,
and
that
she
mayntaineth
and
practiseth
manifest
idolatry
.
And
the
like
most
false
and
slanderous
exprobrations
,
that
as
I
said
before
,
it
plainely
appeereth
that
he
hath
rather
demonstrated
his
owne
bitternes
,
and
rancour
towards
the
Roman
Church
,
then
shewed
any
such
defect
in
her
,
by
any
argument
drowen
from
Father
Campians
wordes
by
him
produced
,
which
wordes
allthough
by
his
quotation
of
Iewell
in
the
margent
he
will
seeme
to
haue
taken
them
at
second
hand
,
yet
certainely
it
is
a
plaine
imposture
,
and
so
let
them
diuide
it
as
they
please
betwixt
themselues
,
it
being
euer
supposed
that
S.
Humfrey
,
and
his
Iewell
,
are
of
equall
authoritie
with
the
Catholiks
,
I
meane
of
none
at
all
.
Moreouer
S.
Humfteys
whole
drift
in
this
section
being
to
cleere
his
owne
Church
from
the
infamous
brand
of
Apostacy
,
he
imposeth
the
whole
cause
of
separation
vpon
the
Roman
Church
,
and
produceth
Erasmus
for
a
wittnes
of
the
same
,
who
being
demaunded
(
for
sooth
)
of
the
duke
of
Saxonie
what
was
Luthers
capitall
offence
that
stirred
vp
so
many
opposites
against
him
,
made
answer
that
Luther
had
committed
two
greate
crimes
,
for
he
had
taken
away
the
Crowne
from
the
Pope
,
and
had
taken
downe
the
belly
of
the
monkes
.
To
which
saying
of
answer
that
Erasmus
is
no
competent
wittnes
against
the
Roman
Church
,
especially
in
a
case
where
his
sole
testimonie
is
interposed
.
And
if
S.
Humfrey
had
ben
circumspect
he
would
not
haue
cited
Erasmus
his
answere
for
this
purpose
,
as
containing
one
manifest
lye
if
not
twb.
For
neither
did
Luther
euer
take
the
Crowne
from
the
Pope
,
which
as
the
world
knowes
,
he
still
enioyeth
maugre
him
and
all
his
adherents
:
neither
did
Luther
euer
take
downe
the
bellies
of
the
monkes
,
except
it
was
by
iniuste
vsurpation
and
rapin
to
fill
his
owne
,
and
to
leade
his
lyfe
in
luxurious
concubinate
with
breach
of
his
vowes
to
god
and
man
.
Immediately
before
this
momicall
passage
of
Luther
out
of
Erasmus
(
which
although
S.
Humfrey
produced
to
colour
the
pretended
Reformers
diuision
from
the
Church
of
Rome
,
yet
doth
it
farre
more
strongly
argue
a
cause
in
the
Pope
iustely
to
reiect
them
,
then
anie
excuse
of
their
preposterous
separation
)
before
this
I
say
he
cited
a
place
out
of
the
Prophet
Ose
which
because
it
makes
nothing
to
this
purpose
,
And
to
speake
first
of
the
ancient
authours
here
cyted
by
the
kinght
,
which
are
Tertullian
,
S.
Hierome
,
and
S.
Augustin
,
it
is
directly
impossible
that
they
should
meane
by
Babylon
,
the
Roman
Church
depraued
by
anie
idolatrie
of
Christian
people
,
for
that
they
were
all
departed
out
of
the
world
,
before
the
supposed
departure
of
the
Roman
Church
from
the
true
Religion
,
is
affirmed
by
our
newe
sectaries
to
haue
begun
,
which
as
they
most
commonly
teach
was
not
before
the
600.
yeare
after
the
tyme
of
Christ
our
Sauiour
.
Now
as
for
the
moderne
authours
to
wit
Orosius
,
Viues
,
Bellarmin
,
and
Baronius
,
and
Ribera
,
they
are
all
knowne
Romanists
yea
and
some
of
them
cheefe
defendours
of
the
Roman
Church
and
faith
,
and
so
it
is
euident
by
this
reason
alone
that
they
had
not
such
a
thought
as
to
meane
by
Babylon
the
Roman
Church
.
And
hence
also
the
reader
may
gather
how
weakely
the
knight
proceeds
in
this
his
first
section
,
which
is
the
introduction
to
the
rest
,
in
regarde
that
by
indeuouring
to
reprooue
his
aduersarie
,
he
doth
vnaduisedly
prooue
his
owne
imperfections
,
and
so
doubtlesse
he
had
better
beene
idle
than
so
ill
occupyed
.
And
I
verily
persuade
my selfe
,
that
if
the
Archflamen
had
duely
examined
the
contents
of
this
section
,
he
doubtlesse
would
haue
marked
it
with
a
,
non
imprimatur
.
In
his
second
section
S.
Humfrey
pretends
to
prooue
the
cause
of
contention
betwixt
the
Reman
Church
and
his
owne
,
originally
to
haue
proceeded
from
the
Romanists
by
their
owne
confession
.
Thus
much
he
promiseth
in
the
title
,
but
performeth
nothing
.
For
he
cytes
but
three
onely
authours
,
that
is
,
Cassander
,
Camden
,
and
Cesenas
,
in
fauor
of
his
position
,
and
yet
none
of
them
are
acknowledged
by
vs
for
sounde
Romanists
,
at
the
least
if
we
respect
their
writings
here
produced
.
And
of
Cassander
both
the
inquisitors
in
their
Index
,
and
Bellarmin
in
his
Controuersies
,
sufficiently
declare
the
vnsoundnes
of
his
doctrine
and
religion
.
Camden
I
hope
is
well
knowe
.
Now
for
Cesenas
notwithstanding
S.
Humfrey
stiles
him
Generall
of
the
Franciscans
,
as
indeed
once
he
was
though
afterwards
deposed
by
his
owne
order
and
excommunicated
by
Pope
Iohn
the
2●
for
his
pertinacie
and
malapert
manner
of
defending
,
that
the
Fryes
of
his
order
could
haue
no
rents
or
possessions
,
yet
if
he
writ
against
the
Tyrannie
of
the
Pope
,
as
he
is
quoted
by
the
kinght
,
it
is
most
manifest
he
could
not
be
a
perfect
Romanist
:
or
at
least
that
worke
could
not
be
his
,
as
in
truch
I
am
persuaded
it
was
not
,
but
falsely
fathered
vpon
him
,
through
the
iniquitie
of
him
who
malitiously
composed
the
mysterie
of
iniquitie
,
against
the
Pope
and
Roman
Church
.
And
hauing
now
examined
the
matter
I
perceiue
that
which
Cesenas
writ
or
Ockam
for
him
was
not
against
the
Popes
in
generall
:
but
he
writ
onely
an
epistle
or
treatise
(
if
anie
thing
he
writ
him selfe
)
against
the
errors
(
as
he
termes
them
)
of
Pope
Iohn
in
particular
,
with
whome
he
was
much
disgusted
by
reason
of
the
foresaid
busines
and
excommunications
.
And
as
for
the
wordes
which
S.
Humfrey
cites
touching
two
Churches
,
one
good
,
and
an
other
euill
,
I
fynde
none
such
,
nor
anie
others
to
that
sense
in
Cesenas
.
And
if
euer
he
vttered
anie
such
wordes
,
which
according
to
his
whole
discourse
is
wholely
improbable
,
yet
doubtlesse
he
could
not
meane
,
that
the
euill
Church
was
the
Roman
Church
intirely
and
absolutely
,
in
regarde
his
owne
wordes
in
his
foresaide
worke
doe
euidently
declare
,
that
he
subiected
him selfe
to
the
same
euen
in
this
same
busines
,
saying
in
his
letters
to
the
Generall
Chapter
of
his
Order
:
And
yet
more
then
this
touching
the
smale
authoritie
which
Cesenas
ought
to
haue
,
if
he
had
done
or
spoken
anie
thing
against
the
Roman
Church
,
if
S.
Humfrey
had
looked
well
aboute
him
,
or
had
beene
carefull
to
knowe
the
truth
,
he
migst
easily
haue
founde
him
registred
in
the
expurgatorie
Index
,
euen
in
the
first
Classe
for
a
prohibited
authour
.
And
so
a
man
may
iustely
demaunde
of
our
aduersarie
with
what
face
then
he
can
affirme
his
position
to
be
confessed
by
the
Romanists
?
Or
what
truth
or
sinceritie
can
anie
one
imagin
to
be
in
him
?
and
what
credit
can
prudently
be
giuen
by
the
Reader
to
the
rest
of
the
allegations
of
his
whole
booke
,
who
deales
in
this
manner
euen
in
the
frontispice
of
his
worke
.
And
in
truth
I
wonder
that
at
the
least
in
humane
policie
,
he
was
no
more
circumspect
,
then
to
prostitute
his
reputation
so
lauishly
euen
then
,
when
he
ought
in
reason
to
be
most
carefull
of
it
.
And
now
this
may
suffice
for
the
censure
of
this
second
section
as
conteyning
nothing
in
particular
wich
deserueth
rehersall
,
or
which
may
any
wise
redound
,
eyther
to
the
authours
credit
,
or
serue
for
the
confirmation
of
his
tenets
specified
in
the
former
section
,
the
proofe
as
you
see
being
heere
as
weake
and
sillie
as
the
matter
calumnious
before
,
and
consequently
deseruing
no
milder
sentence
of
condemnation
,
then
the
contents
of
the
former
section
.
THE
II.
PERIOD
.
NOw
I
will
passe
to
a
view
of
the
third
section
of
Sir
Humfreys
booke
which
is
,
in
effect
a
continuation
of
the
same
matter
treated
in
the
two
first
sections
,
his
chiefe
drift
being
to
shew
the
Pope
and
Roman
Church
to
be
in
fault
for
refusing
reformation
.
by
the
confession
of
the
members
of
the
Roman
Church
,
I
will
examine
briefly
how
exactly
he
prosecuteth
the
same
,
and
whether
he
recouereth
in
this
section
the
credit
which
he
lost
in
the
former
.
He
laboureth
to
shew
corruption
both
of
faith
and
manners
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
that
by
confession
of
Roman
Authours
;
and
for
the
proofe
of
this
confession
he
produceth
Pope
Alexander
the
fift
out
of
the
Councell
of
Pisa
ses
.
20.
the
Councell
of
Senes
,
the
Councell
of
Trent
in
diuerse
places
.
Moulin
the
21.
chap.
of
his
Eucharist
.
Agrippa
de
vanit
.
Scient.
chap.
17.
the
Bull
of
Pius
the
4.
Philippus
Mornaeus
.
Card.
Caraph
.
Consill
.
de
emendanda
Ecclesia
.
Paulus
Vergerius
in
opusculis
,
&
de
Idolo
Lauret
.
hist.
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
in
English
.
These
are
all
the
writers
he
alledgeth
,
which
are
ten
in
number
.
And
although
he
citheth
them
all
as
if
they
were
Romanists
(
for
that
he
rehearseth
them
all
to
the
same
purpose
and
in
one
tenour
or
sequele
of
words
)
neuerthelesse
it
is
well
knowen
that
fiue
of
the
ten
are
so
farre
from
being
Romanists
,
as
three
of
them
are
professed
enemies
to
the
Roman
Church
,
to
wit
Moulin
,
Vergerius
,
and
Mornaeus
,
and
the
other
two
that
is
Agrippa
,
and
the
Tridentine
history
in
English
,
are
of
no
authority
,
nor
credit
amongst
the
Romanists
,
as
being
either
plaine
heretikes
,
or
suspected
of
heresie
.
And
as
for
the
other
fiue
Catholike
testimonies
,
they
containe
not
one
word
whereby
it
may
be
proued
that
either
the
Pope
,
or
the
rest
,
of
the
Roman
Church
did
refuse
to
admite
of
due
reformation
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
affirmeth
,
but
the
contrary
is
most
manifest
out
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
it selfe
,
euen
in
the
same
places
which
he
citeth
,
where
speciall
decrees
of
diuerse
particular
abuses
to
be
reformed
by
the
Pastors
of
the
Church
are
extant
.
True
it
is
that
where
abuses
are
decreede
to
be
reformed
,
those
same
abuses
are
of
necessity
supposed
to
be
,
either
in
times
past
,
present
,
or
future
,
and
so
farre
I
graunt
the
testimonies
cited
by
the
K.
out
of
the
two
Councels
and
other
Catholike
Authors
be
of
force
:
but
to
prooue
that
those
abuses
be
corruptions
in
faith
,
or
yet
in
manners
,
except
we
meane
of
the
euill
faith
and
manners
brought
into
the
Church
by
Luther
&
his
followers
)
or
that
they
being
truly
knowen
to
be
in
the
Church
,
yet
the
Pope
will
not
haue
them
reformed
,
this
I
say
is
a
meere
calumniation
diuised
by
Sir
Humfrey
in
disgrace
of
the
chiefe
Pastour
of
the
Roman
Church
,
and
cannot
possiblie
be
deduced
out
of
the
foresaid
testimonies
,
but
rather
the
quite
contrary
is
expressely
to
be
found
,
and
lastely
in
the
decrees
of
the
Tridentine
Councell
,
as
we
haue
already
said
.
that
the
day
of
the
Roman
reformation
is
not
yet
come
.
And
although
the
Knight
out
of
the
aboundance
of
his
wit
,
is
not
content
onely
to
saye
that
the
Romanists
confesse
there
are
corruptions
in
their
Church
onely
in
manners
,
but
alsoe
,
that
they
confesse
the
same
in
doctrine
:
neuerthelesse
of
the
poynt
of
doctrine
he
bringeth
not
any
proofe
at
all
,
eyther
out
of
Romanists
,
or
any
other
waye
,
but
insteede
of
proofes
he
vttereth
diuers
vntruths
,
mingled
with
some
impertinences
and
equiuocations
.
Hee
telleth
his
reader
in
the
20.
page
that
the
Councell
of
Trent
,
in
Paul
the
thirds
time
,
complained
of
Indulgences
,
but
this
is
most
false
,
for
the
Councell
doth
not
in
anie
sorte
complaine
of
the
Indulgences
them selues
,
but
onely
that
the
Popes
officers
in
collecting
the
almes
or
contribution
of
the
people
vppon
the
graunt
and
gayning
of
them
,
gaue
scandall
to
faithfull
Christians
,
as
appeareth
by
the
very
same
wordes
which
he
himselfe
citeth
,
neither
did
those
men
(
meaning
the
Fathers
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
)
seeke
a
reformation
in
manners
onely
,
but
in
the
doctrine
it selfe
.
Whereas
they
in
that
very
place
by
the
knight
alledged
,
wish
onely
that
the
priuate
masse
might
be
restored
to
the
auncient
custome
of
the
communion
of
the
people
,
together
with
the
priest
,
which
as
you
knowe
is
no
matter
of
doctrine
in
controuersie
betweene
the
Romanists
and
the
reformers
,
but
onely
of
practise
,
and
consequently
it
proueth
not
the
knights
intent
in
this
place
,
but
rather
his
ignorant
mistaking
of
the
true
state
of
the
question
in
that
pointe
of
controuersie
about
priuate
masse
.
Now
that
which
he
addeth
of
the
Latin
seruice
in
the
Roman
Church
to
wit
that
the
Councell
commaunds
all
Pastours
that
they
at
the
Masse
doe
frequently
interpret
and
declare
vnto
the
people
the
mistery
of
the
Sacrament
,
who
doth
not
see
how
impertinent
it
is
to
the
matter
of
doctrine
,
and
how
vnapt
a
medium
it
is
to
proue
that
the
Doctours
of
the
Councell
either
did
seeke
reformation
in
the
same
,
or
to
shew
how
neare
the
same
doctours
came
to
the
doctrine
of
the
reformed
Churches
,
as
he
presently
addeth
,
affirming
them
so
to
doe
,
since
the
Councell
proceedeth
not
there
,
by
way
of
definition
or
decree
in
matter
of
doctrine
,
but
onely
by
way
of
ordinance
and
commaund
as
the
wordes
by
him selfe
rehearsed
doe
plainely
specifie
;
&
yet
not
so
but
that
the
same
Councell
,
and
in
the
same
place
doth
either
expressely
commaund
,
or
at
the
least
suppose
that
the
Masse
ought
to
be
for
the
most
part
celebrated
in
the
lattin
tongue
.
Moreouer
touching
equiuocations
,
certaine
it
is
that
he
doth
equiuocate
in
his
allegation
of
Pope
Alexander
out
of
the
Councell
of
Pisa
,
where
he
saith
that
the
Pope
promised
solemnely
to
intend
the
reformation
of
the
Church
,
whereas
in
truth
Alexander
meaneth
not
of
the
faith
of
the
Roman
Church
,
as
the
knight
would
haue
it
,
but
of
the
reformation
of
manners
,
or
of
some
abuses
practized
in
the
Church
by
particular
persons
.
Besides
this
,
it
is
not
probable
that
the
Pope
would
meddle
himselfe
in
matters
of
doctrine
in
such
a
Councell
as
was
assembled
purposely
for
the
taking
away
of
a
schisme
.
But
concerning
manners
I
finde
that
in
the
laste
period
of
the
same
Councell
of
Pisa
which
Sir
Humfrey
cites
ther
is
expresse
mention
both
of
some
reformation
already
made
by
the
Pope
&
Cardinals
,
&
also
of
more
referred
to
the
next
generall
Sinod
:
the
words
of
which
determination
are
these
.
Item
cum
Dominus
noster
Papa
cum
consilio
Concilij
intendere●
reformare
Ecclesiam
in
capite
&
membris
,
&
iam
multa
per
Dei
gratiam
sint
expedita
per
ipsum
Dominum
nostrum
Papam
,
moreouer
in
the
same
Councell
of
Senes
which
the
knight
also
here
produceth
I
finde
no
mention
of
corruption
in
faith
except
by
faith
Sir
Humfrey
will
vnderstand
the
corrupted
faith
of
the
wiclefists
,
Hussits
,
or
the
Grecians
,
the
reformation
and
reduction
of
all
which
both
the
Pope
and
Councell
indeuored
so
farre
to
effect
and
compasse
,
as
they
declared
the
first
two
sectaries
to
be
heretikes
and
that
so
earnestly
as
they
threatened
all
those
with
excommunication
who
should
any
way
fauore
them
euen
with
as
much
onely
as
to
giue
them
salte
to
their
pottage
,
&
as
for
reformation
of
manners
there
is
not
a
word
which
proueth
that
the
Pope
made
anie
resistance
therein
but
rather
expressely
laboured
for
the
same
,
tho
by
accident
of
impediments
incident
it
was
actually
hindered
at
that
present
.
Sacrosancta
Synodus
vniuersalem
Eccles.
representans
nuntijs
sanctissimi
in
Christo
Patris
ac
Domini
nostri
Martini
quinti
summi
Pontif.
specialiter
deputatis
ipsius
reformationem
intentus
,
incipiens
à
fidei
fundamentō
praeter
quod
nemo
potest
aliud
ponere
damnationem
haeresum
Wiclefistarum
&
Hussitarum
suorumque
sequacium
&c.
In
decret
.
Contra
Hussitas
haereticos
.
Con.
Sen.
By
which
it
is
manifest
how
great
the
impudencie
of
Sir
Hunfrey
is
in
alledging
these
two
Councels
to
proue
want
of
reformation
in
the
Pope
or
Roman
Church
they
standing
both
so
plainely
for
the
contrary
to
his
position
or
rather
imposition
.
He
equiuocateth
also
in
that
allegation
of
Card.
Schomberg
whom
he
affirmeth
to
haue
opposed
the
reformation
made
in
the
Councell
of
Trent
.
Whereas
yet
he
citeth
no
wordes
of
the
Card.
but
onely
a
bare
relation
taken
out
of
a
certaine
history
of
the
acts
of
the
Councell
published
in
English
touching
the
foresaid
Cardinals
opposition
or
rather
proposition
onely
,
in
the
point
of
reformation
.
Which
fact
being
related
onely
by
an
vnauthenticall
history
,
the
allegation
can
be
of
no
more
authority
than
is
the
relatour
himselfe
who
was
then
a
Caluinian
sectary
called
Suauis
who
hath
writ
a
very
corrupted
narration
of
that
which
passed
in
the
Councell
as
relating
the
contentions
or
contrary
opinions
which
the
Fathers
&
Doctours
held
whiles
matters
were
in
debate
&
vnconcluded
,
as
if
they
had
continued
after
the
definitions
and
decrees
were
made
,
and
so
abusing
both
the
Councell
&
his
reader
egregiously
.
And
yet
more
then
this
suppose
the
relation
were
most
true
and
authenticall
,
yet
doth
it
not
proue
Sir
Humfreys
intent
,
videlicet
that
the
Pope
denieth
reformatlon
of
Corruptions
in
faith
and
manners
,
for
that
in
the
wordes
related
out
of
the
foresaid
history
,
there
is
no
mention
of
any
corruptions
of
that
nature
,
but
onely
of
abuses
in
generall
tearmes
,
which
Schomberg
was
of
opinion
that
it
had
beene
better
to
let
them
alone
,
yet
that
was
onely
his
particular
dictamen
and
proposition
,
to
which
neither
the
Pope
nor
the
rest
of
the
Councell
agreed
,
but
resolued
,
vpon
a
course
of
reformation
as
the
decrees
themselues
doe
testifie
:
so
that
this
passage
of
the
related
historie
is
impertinentlie
alledged
by
the
Knight
.
Finally
S.
Humfrey
doth
equiuocate
not
onely
in
that
which
we
haue
said
,
but
alsoe
in
the
very
substance
of
this
his
whole
section
.
For
his
cheefe
or
rather
whole
scope
being
not
onely
to
proue
corruptions
in
doctrine
and
manners
to
be
confessed
by
the
Romanists
to
be
in
their
Church
,
but
also
that
the
Pope
refuseth
to
take
them
away
,
he
by
his
allegations
of
the
testimonies
of
some
Romanists
proueth
in
parte
that
there
were
corruptions
in
manners
both
before
and
when
the
Councell
of
Trent
was
assembled
,
but
he
quite
dissembleth
the
other
parte
,
to
witte
,
that
they
were
reformed
allso
by
the
same
Councell
;
and
yet
not
withstanding
the
very
same
places
which
he
produceth
out
of
the
Romanists
doe
as
plainely
auerre
the
one
as
the
other
.
And
so
out
of
those
proceedings
of
Sir
Humfrey
and
the
rest
which
hath
bene
said
it
may
plainely
appeere
that
he
is
so
farre
from
recouery
of
that
honour
which
he
lost
in
the
former
sections
,
that
he
hath
now
stained
the
same
not
a
little
more
,
and
so
we
may
conclude
this
section
and
include
it
in
the
former
censure
.
THE
III.
PERIOD
.
IN
the
fourth
section
the
knight
proceedeth
to
greater
matters
,
to
matters
I
say
of
life
and
death
;
for
he
affirmeth
that
manny
learned
Romanists
conuicted
by
the
euidence
of
truth
either
in
parte
or
in
whole
haue
renounced
Popery
before
their
death
,
But
let
vs
see
how
exactly
and
sollidly
he
proceedeth
in
so
weightie
a
matter
.
He
citeth
Surius
Com.
pag.
733.
the
Councell
of
Basill
out
of
Genebrard
.
Aeneas
Syluius
out
of
Platina
.
Harding
out
of
Iewell
.
The
Rhemish
testament
out
of
Causabon
.
The
lord
Cooke
.
B.
Gard.
out
of
Iohn
Fox
.
Bellarmins
Controuersies
.
And
his
last
will
or
testament
.
Albertus
Pighins
.
Paulus
Vergerius
and
his
brother
Baptist
.
These
are
all
the
authours
hee
citeth
in
this
section
.
For
the
proofe
of
his
vast
assertion
,
which
authours
being
but
ten
in
number
yet
three
of
them
are
knowen
to
be
no
Romanists
except
he
will
haue
L.
Cooke
and
the
two
brother
Bishops
to
be
Romanists
,
which
neuerthelesse
he
confesseth
to
to
haue
protested
against
the
Romish
doctrine
;
so
that
now
according
to
his
owne
confession
the
whole
number
of
Roman
authours
he
citeth
heere
is
reduced
to
seuen
,
which
small
number
I
cannot
imagin
according
to
what
Arithmetick
it
can
truly
be
accounted
many
,
especially
if
we
compare
them
to
the
infinite
number
of
the
Romanists
which
haue
bene
&
yet
are
extant
in
the
Christian
world
constant
maintainers
of
Popery
.
And
this
I
say
euen
in
case
it
were
true
that
all
those
seuen
had
euer
renounced
the
Romish
faith
either
in
part
or
totally
,
as
the
knight
affirmeth
;
which
neuerthelesse
I
will
make
apparent
to
be
otherwise
.
And
first
touching
the
Councell
of
Basil
,
the
very
same
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
do
conuince
the
same
,
for
saith
hee
the
Councell
did
allow
the
cup
to
the
Bohemians
vpon
this
condition
:
that
they
should
not
find
fault
with
the
contrary
vse
,
nor
seuer
themselues
from
the
Catholike
Church
.
Now
what
is
heere
to
be
found
in
these
wordes
of
the
Councell
which
is
any
kinde
of
renuntiation
of
the
Romish
faith
?
nay
what
is
there
which
concerneth
the
Romish
faith
at
all
?
that
which
the
Councell
determineth
being
but
onelie
a
graunt
to
one
particular
nation
vpon
particular
reasons
,
and
that
in
a
point
of
practice
not
of
doctrine
,
which
also
,
if
our
English
protestants
were
as
conformable
to
the
Roman
Church
in
all
other
points
of
faith
and
manners
as
the
Bohemians
then
were
,
might
perhaps
vpon
the
like
iust
reasons
and
vpon
the
same
condition
be
graunted
in
the
realme
of
England
,
and
that
without
any
preiudice
to
either
faith
or
manners
.
But
our
English
sectaries
are
so
farre
from
conformitie
to
the
Romanists
not
onely
in
diuerse
other
points
but
euen
in
this
particular
that
they
continually
exclaime
against
them
both
in
their
bookes
and
sermons
as
violatours
of
Christs
institution
in
that
they
do
not
allwayes
and
in
euerie
countrie
communicate
the
people
in
both
kindes
,
the
reformed
Churches
haue
done
nothing
in
this
otherwise
then
former
Councels
had
anciently
decreed
.
He
citeth
in
the
second
place
Aeneas
Syluius
,
who
was
afterwardes
Pope
Pius
the
second
,
as
if
he
had
renounced
the
Romish
religion
in
that
he
saith
,
that
as
marriage
vpon
weightie
reasons
was
taken
from
the
Priests
,
so
vpon
weightie
reasons
it
were
wished
to
be
restored
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
purpose
?
is
a
wish
of
an
alteration
in
one
particular
point
,
&
that
not
in
faith
but
manners
or
rather
in
practice
of
the
Church
a
renuntiation
of
religion
either
in
parte
or
in
whole
?
or
is
the
prohibition
of
marriage
,
or
the
celibate
or
single
life
of
priests
anie
of
the
twelue
articles
which
the
knight
is
pleased
to
tearme
the
new
creede
of
the
Roman
Church
?
no
suerlie
.
How
then
is
it
a
matter
of
faith
,
or
the
renunciation
of
it
the
renuntiation
of
Poperie
?
and
not
rather
a
renuntiation
onelie
of
a
precept
of
the
Church
in
case
it
were
truelie
renounced
by
anie
Romanist
whatsoeuer
he
is
.
Which
renuntiation
neuerthelesse
was
neuer
made
by
the
authour
cited
as
his
wordes
rehearsed
out
of
Platina
by
Sir
Humfrey
himselfe
doe
make
manifest
to
anie
syncere
and
vnpartiall
reader
.
In
which
not
by
way
of
wish
or
as
giuing
his
reall
assent
with
the
reformers
as
Sir
Humfrey
doth
corruptedly
relate
,
but
onelie
by
a
doutfull
deliuerie
of
his
owne
priuate
dictamen
that
present
tyme
occurring
vnto
him
.
Sacerdotibus
magna
ratione
sublatas
nuptias
,
maiori
restituendas
videri
.
Plat.
in
pio
2.
And
yet
more
then
that
after
he
was
Pope
and
making
reflection
vpon
his
former
writings
published
in
his
greener
yeares
,
to
the
imitation
of
S.
Augustin
and
others
he
framed
are
tractation
of
diuers
particulars
passages
of
his
owne
workes
among
which
this
is
one
,
as
appeares
by
the
tenor
of
the
same
which
in
his
later
editions
in
force
of
a
breefe
or
Bull
is
vsually
prefixed
to
his
bookes
.
To
omitte
that
if
the
foresaid
Syluius
had
bene
a
renouncer
of
anie
point
of
Poperie
it
were
too
ridiculous
to
imagin
that
euer
he
would
haue
bene
elected
Pope
,
as
neuerthelesse
the
knight
confesseth
him
to
haue
bene
afterwardes
.
And
thus
the
reader
may
plainelie
see
that
this
allegation
is
of
no
more
force
then
the
former
towards
the
proofe
of
Sir
Humfreys
intent
.
In
the
next
place
is
master
Harding
brought
in
for
a
renoncer
of
Popery
.
For
that
as
Iewell
reporteth
,
he
saith
that
godly
and
faithfull
people
haue
since
the
time
of
the
Primitiue
Church
much
complained
of
Priuate
Masse
.
But
suppose
it
were
true
,
what
is
this
to
the
purpose
of
renouncing
of
Popery
?
For
what
zealous
and
religious
Papist
is
there
in
the
world
who
doth
not
iustly
complaine
of
want
of
deuotion
in
the
laity
for
that
they
haue
not
that
feruour
in
frequenting
the
communion
which
those
of
the
Primitiue
Church
had
?
and
if
this
could
be
remedied
what
Romanist
would
not
much
desire
it
,
yea
and
by
all
meanes
possible
procure
it
?
but
is
this
to
condemne
as
vnlawfull
or
contrary
to
Christs
institution
(
as
you
sectaries
doe
)
all
Masses
as
be
celebrated
without
Communicants
?
no
such
matter
.
No
more
,
nay
much
lesse
then
if
for
complaining
that
Sir
Humfrey
Linde
doth
not
deale
so
sincerely
in
the
citations
of
his
aduersaries
as
becometh
the
reputation
of
a
knight
,
a
man
should
therefore
presently
be
thought
to
haue
quite
condemned
him
of
dishonest
proceeding
in
that
nature
euen
in
the
highest
degree
of
false
dealing
and
corruption
.
Which
collection
if
he
please
to
graunt
,
I
know
not
who
will
be
so
vnciuill
as
to
contradict
him
.
Especiallie
considering
that
euen
in
this
verie
citation
he
hath
corrupted
doctour
Harding
most
vnconscionablie
by
applying
against
priuate
masse
that
which
he
speakes
onelie
against
the
negligence
of
the
laye
people
for
that
they
so
commonlie
omit
to
communicate
at
masse
,
as
if
that
authour
disalowed
of
the
priuate
masse
it selfe
,
whose
wordes
neuerthelesse
truelie
cited
as
he
hath
them
in
the
beginning
of
the
ninth
leafe
of
his
answer
to
Iewels
chalenge
will
cleare
the
busines
and
manifestlie
discouer
where
the
fault
lyeth
:
that
others
do
commonlie
forbeare
saith
hee
,
to
communicate
with
the
preist
it
is
through
their
owne
faulte
and
negligence
not
regarding
their
owne
saluation
whereof
the
godly
and
carefull
rulers
of
faithfull
people
haue
since
the
tyme
of
the
primitiue
Church
allwayes
much
complained
.
And
thus
you
see
how
nimblie
the
subtil
knight
hath
abused
both
that
worthy
doctour
&
his
owne
reader
.
Wherefore
it
being
by
this
which
we
haue
said
apparent
that
M.
Harding
was
no
condemner
of
priuate
masse
as
either
vnlawfull
or
against
the
institution
of
Christ
,
it
also
is
thence
manifestlie
consequent
that
he
was
no
renouncer
of
Poperie
euen
in
that
particular
point
,
and
so
the
proofe
which
the
knight
would
draw
from
him
is
of
no
force
,
nor
auaileable
to
his
cause
;
nay
it
is
in
trueth
so
disagreeable
to
the
state
of
the
question
that
it
is
no
small
wonder
how
either
mallice
or
ignorance
could
so
much
blinde
him
as
to
make
vse
of
it
in
this
matter
.
The
fourth
restimonie
is
out
of
the
Rhemes
Testament
the
authours
of
which
(
as
hee
affirmeth
out
of
Causabon
)
auouch
the
scriptures
to
haue
bene
translated
into
English
by
the
importunitie
of
the
heretiks
.
And
he
addeth
that
the
Romanists
haue
of
late
graunted
a
dispensation
to
some
men
and
woemen
also
to
reade
scriptures
,
and
this
also
was
done
(
saith
hee
)
by
the
importunitie
of
the
heretiks
.
Moreouer
as
it
were
in
confirmation
of
the
same
,
he
addeth
that
most
of
the
Romish
proselites
,
(
as
he
tearmeth
them
)
did
frequent
their
Church
and
seruice
for
the
first
eleuen
yeeres
of
Queene
Elizabeth
:
neither
(
saith
he
)
was
it
forbidden
by
any
lawfull
councell
.
Thus
he
discourseth
touching
this
point
.
Heere
is
much
a
doe
and
little
to
the
purpose
.
And
indeede
after
a
greate
deale
of
studie
a
man
shall
hardlie
collect
anie
thing
out
of
the
whole
discourse
which
may
seeme
to
haue
anie
shewe
of
proofe
for
the
knights
assertion
,
videlicet
.
That
many
Romanists
haue
renounced
Popery
before
their
death
.
Yet
it
seemes
to
me
,
his
whole
drift
may
be
reduced
to
these
two
arguments
.
The
first
thus
:
The
Romanists
haue
translated
the
bible
by
the
importunitie
of
the
reformers
,
&
giue
dispensations
to
some
men
and
woemen
to
reade
it
;
therefore
many
Romanists
haue
renounced
Popery
.
The
second
thus
:
most
of
the
Romanists
did
frequent
the
reformed
Church
and
seruice
for
the
first
11.
yeeres
of
Queene
Elizabeths
reigne
,
neither
was
their
communication
with
them
prohibited
by
anie
lawfull
Councell
,
therefore
manie
Romanists
renounced
Popery
before
their
death
.
Loe
heere
two
learned
Enthymems
:
they
march
like
two
march
hares
and
runne
starke
wilde
.
I
wonder
what
nimble
vniuersity
man
hath
taught
the
knight
to
choppe
Logike
so
minshingly
,
or
what
polipracticall
Alchymist
hath
instructed
him
in
the
art
of
extraction
so
exactly
,
that
out
of
the
importunity
of
his
reformed
consorts
,
he
is
able
to
drawe
the
translation
of
the
Rhemish
Testament
,
and
that
with
a
dispensation
for
some
men
and
woemen
to
reade
it
.
So
skilfull
he
is
in
extracting
oyle
out
of
stones
and
milke
out
of
mountaines
.
Neither
doth
his
exquisite
knowledge
stay
heere
,
but
he
will
needes
persuade
his
reader
he
can
extract
also
out
of
the
same
,
that
many
Romanists
haue
renounced
their
Popery
by
translating
the
Bible
into
English
and
by
giuing
a
dispensation
to
reade
the
same
;
nay
and
that
which
is
yet
more
maruelous
he
seemeth
to
glory
not
a
little
that
this
hath
beene
all
effected
by
the
importunity
of
his
reformed
brothers
;
as
if
forsooth
,
they
had
exercised
an
act
of
some
heroycall
virtue
therein
.
Whereas
in
truth
,
importunity
is
so
farre
from
desert
of
commendation
as
it
may
be
much
more
iustly
registred
in
the
list
of
vices
then
of
virtues
:
and
soe
we
see
that
in
the
Scripture
it selfe
the
importunitie
of
a
beggar
is
branded
with
the
marke
of
improbity
,
that
which
I
maruell
,
the
knight
being
so
greate
a
Biblist
as
he
is
,
did
not
reflect
vpon
it
.
And
admitte
it
were
true
that
the
Romanists
moued
by
the
importunity
of
the
sectaries
did
translate
the
Bible
into
the
vulgar
tongue
for
the
laitie
to
reade
,
by
what
rule
of
Logike
I
pray
you
Sir
Humfrey
doth
it
follow
that
many
Romanists
haue
renounced
Popery
before
their
death
?
proue
but
this
one
consequence
and
I
yeeld
you
the
victory
.
And
pray
tell
me
what
article
of
faith
is
that
which
teacheth
the
Romanists
to
beleeue
that
the
Bible
ought
not
to
be
read
by
the
laytie
in
no
case
,
or
vpon
no
reasons
neuer
so
weighty
?
or
if
you
can
finde
no
such
article
,
as
I
know
you
cannot
,
then
confesse
you
haue
lost
the
victory
in
the
point
,
confesse
you
haue
proceeded
weakely
,
confesse
you
haue
by
your
first
argument
proued
nothing
:
and
so
I
will
take
that
for
graunted
,
and
passe
to
the
second
,
which
allthough
it
hath
some
more
sense
in
it
then
the
other
,
yet
it
is
senselesse
enough
as
shall
presently
appeare
.
For
that
being
to
proue
your
antecedent
or
first
proposition
you
onelie
produce
L.
Cookes
report
,
that
most
of
the
Romish
proselytes
did
frequent
your
Church
or
seruice
for
the
first
eleuen
yeares
of
Queene
Elizabeth
.
But
you
must
knowe
that
this
authour
is
no
competent
witnesse
against
the
Romanists
,
he
is
one
of
your
owne
crue
,
we
care
not
for
his
reportes
,
we
leaue
them
to
the
lawyers
:
He
indeed
(
as
you
do
now
)
presumed
to
write
matters
of
diuinity
,
but
in
that
he
plaied
the
Sutor
vltra
crepidam
,
as
you
doe
,
and
so
laboured
onely
to
make
him selfe
ridiculous
,
as
you
doe
.
But
let
vs
admit
that
which
he
reporteth
,
to
be
true
,
and
that
fome
frequented
your
Church
and
seruice
in
those
times
(
as
I
my selfe
haue
heard
they
did
at
the
least
in
exteriour
shewe
,
yet
priuately
at
home
frequenting
Masse
also
,
)
doth
it
thence
follow
that
in
their
minds
they
renounced
Popery
?
no
such
matter
.
No
more
then
doe
diuerse
of
his
maiesties
subiects
,
who
euen
at
this
day
goe
to
your
Churches
,
whom
neuerthelesse
you
your selues
hould
for
none
of
yours
:
but
therefore
doe
commonly
terme
them
Church
going
Papists
.
So
that
according
to
this
and
euen
ad
hominem
,
that
is
,
vpon
your
owne
Principles
,
your
sequel
is
to
be
condemned
to
be
of
noe
force
;
or
at
the
most
out
of
that
fact
of
those
Romanists
which
you
speake
of
,
it
can
onely
be
inferred
that
they
proceeded
contrary
to
the
profession
of
their
faith
,
but
not
that
they
renounced
the
same
,
which
two
things
if
you
could
haue
duely
distinguished
,
I
verily
persuade
my selfe
you
would
neuer
haue
discoursed
so
friuoluslie
as
you
doe
in
this
point
.
But
now
I
greeue
I
haue
spent
so
much
time
in
ventilating
so
largelie
such
chaffie
stuffe
.
After
this
wise
discourse
Sir
Humfrey
passeth
to
his
owne
persuasions
,
for
the
proofe
of
his
assertion
.
I
am
verily
persuaded
(
saith
he
)
that
many
at
this
day
in
the
Church
of
Rome
doe
assent
to
our
doctrine
that
dare
not
communicate
with
vs
openly
in
the
Church
;
adding
an
appeale
to
their
consciences
how
many
of
the
Romanists
haue
renounced
Popery
in
those
diuerse
points
in
this
place
.
But
to
this
I
answer
that
if
Romanists
would
haue
bene
persuaded
by
this
wise
knights
motiues
they
had
longe
ago
all
renounced
Poperie
and
turned
Puritans
indeed
,
but
God
be
praised
they
neuer
were
,
nor
I
hope
euer
will
be
persuaded
by
him
and
his
workes
,
if
they
haue
anie
branies
in
their
heads
.
No
suerlie
.
And
if
they
come
but
once
to
examine
this
his
booke
and
get
a
view
of
the
discouerie
of
his
deceipts
,
they
will
be
so
farre
from
being
moued
either
by
his
reasons
or
by
his
authority
to
relinquish
their
owne
faith
,
that
doubtlesse
they
will
rather
be
quite
out
of
loue
both
with
him
&
his
religion
.
And
euen
in
this
particular
persuasion
of
his
he
sheweth
himselfe
so
ridiculous
as
no
man
of
iudgment
if
he
marke
his
proceeding
can
euer
esteeme
him
as
a
man
worthy
either
to
be
heard
or
followed
.
For
what
man
in
the
world
will
be
moued
by
him
who
in
steede
of
proofes
bringeth
his
owne
persuasions
onely
of
the
testimonie
of
the
conscience
of
those
whom
he
houlds
for
aduersaries
,
and
whose
consciences
if
he
proceedes
consequently
,
he
must
either
hould
for
bad
,
or
at
the
least
for
vnknowne
to
himselfe
.
What
is
this
but
absurdum
per
absurdius
?
and
yet
he
is
so
confident
in
this
his
vaine
persuasion
that
he
cometh
to
specifie
diuerse
points
of
Popery
which
he
affirmeth
to
haue
beene
renounced
by
many
Romanists
,
some
of
which
pointes
are
no
Poperie
at
all
,
but
either
his
owne
lies
,
or
els
his
ignorant
mistake
of
the
true
doctrine
of
Papists
in
those
particulars
.
For
example
in
his
page
32.
he
demaundeth
of
vs
how
many
Romanists
doe
smile
at
fained
miracles
,
at
diuine
vertue
ascribed
to
medals
,
beades
,
Agnus
deis
,
and
the
like
which
saying
of
his
is
meerely
grounded
vpon
a
false
supposition
or
rather
a
slanderous
falsitie
of
his
owne
coyning
,
as
if
it
were
true
that
the
Romanists
in
generall
did
both
approue
false
miracles
,
and
hould
diuine
vertue
to
be
in
medals
,
beades
,
and
Agnus
deis
,
neither
of
which
is
true
or
was
euer
defended
by
any
Romanist
in
the
world
,
it
being
both
true
and
manifestlie
knowen
that
though
all
Romanists
hould
the
foresaid
things
for
holie
,
and
do
assure
themselues
that
God
doth
sometimes
please
to
worke
strange
effects
by
them
,
yet
do
not
they
beleeue
that
any
diuine
vertue
doth
reside
in
them
,
no
more
then
they
hould
to
haue
resided
in
the
shadowe
of
S.
Peter
which
neuerthelesse
wrought
strange
and
miraculous
effects
.
So
that
by
this
discourse
Sir
Humfrey
doth
onelie
proue
his
owne
ignorance
and
malice
,
as
also
he
doth
most
manifestlie
in
the
next
lines
,
and
that
more
subtillie
then
before
,
where
he
demaundeth
how
many
(
Romanists
)
do
preferre
the
lawfulnesse
of
Priests
mariage
before
the
keeping
of
a
concubine
;
although
saith
hee
,
the
contrarie
be
the
common
doctrine
of
the
Church
of
Rome
?
In
which
wordes
he
doth
indeauour
craftilie
to
insinuate
to
his
reader
that
it
is
a
poynt
of
Poperie
,
and
that
the
Roman
Church
doth
approoue
the
keeping
of
a
Concubine
by
a
Priest
rather
then
he
should
marrye
,
whereas
the
Church
doth
not
in
anie
case
allowe
eyther
of
the
one
or
the
other
;
but
onelie
houldes
that
,
that
Priest
offendeth
God
more
grieuouslie
who
marrieth
to
wit
after
his
preisthood
and
vowe
of
chastitie
,
de
caelib
.
prop.
9.
then
he
who
keepeth
a
concubine
at
home
,
as
Costerus
though
incompletlie
cited
and
vniustlie
taxed
by
the
knigth
,
doth
most
truelie
affirme
.
And
this
is
a
certaine
knowen
trueth
among
diuines
consequent
to
the
prohibition
of
Priests
marriage
which
prohibition
once
supposed
he
that
should
marrie
should
not
onelie
committe
a
scandalous
sinne
of
the
flesh
,
as
that
Priest
doth
who
should
be
a
Concubinarie
,
but
also
he
should
in
that
case
comit
a
Speciall
irreuerence
against
the
Sacrament
of
marriage
by
his
sacrilegious
frustration
of
the
same
which
sacrilegious
action
and
violation
of
his
now
is
of
it selfe
a
more
grieuous
sinne
then
is
the
keepinge
of
a
concubine
,
as
all
men
,
To
omit
,
that
for
a
Preist
to
marrie
in
that
manner
besides
the
foresaid
crimes
it
includes
also
the
scandall
of
Concubinate
it selfe
.
But
now
Sir
Humfrey
for
conclusion
of
his
former
discourse
passeth
to
the
poynt
of
merits
.
Lastly
(
saith
hee
)
how
many
for
feare
of
vaine
glorie
and
presumption
and
by
reason
of
the
vncertainetie
of
their
owne
workes
doe
relie
wholie
vpon
the
merits
of
Christ
Iesus
?
shewe
me
that
learned
man
that
liueth
a
professed
Papist
in
the
Church
of
Rome
and
dyeth
not
a
sounde
Protestant
in
this
prime
foundation
of
our
faith
.
Thus
the
knigth
;
who
as
you
may
easilie
perceiue
by
way
of
a
glorious
Epiphonema
goeth
about
to
perswade
his
reader
that
all
the
learned
Romanists
before
their
death
renounce
that
article
of
the
Roman
Church
which
affirmeth
that
a
man
iustified
by
the
grace
of
God
can
merit
the
Kingdome
of
heauen
by
the
good
workes
he
doth
by
vertue
of
the
grace
of
God
and
merits
of
Iesus
Christ
,
because
forsooth
,
many
for
feare
of
vaine
glorie
and
presumption
,
and
by
reason
of
the
vncertainelie
of
their
owne
workes
at
their
death
doe
relie
wholie
on
the
merits
of
their
Sauiour
;
whereas
indeede
these
are
two
farre
different
poynts
of
doctrine
,
the
first
,
that
is
,
the
trueth
of
mans
merit
in
the
sense
declared
being
a
matter
of
faith
in
the
Roman
Church
;
the
second
which
is
the
confidence
in
merits
,
being
none
;
the
one
being
about
the
substance
of
merits
,
the
other
onelie
about
the
qualitie
;
the
one
about
the
absolute
acknowledgment
of
merits
,
the
other
onely
about
the
ouergreate
confidence
or
presumption
in
them
:
And
so
he
that
renounceth
the
first
,
renounceth
Poperie
indeede
,
but
he
that
renounceth
the
second
doth
not
;
neither
can
he
be
called
a
Protestant
as
the
knight
would
haue
him
to
be
,
for
the
onelie
deniall
of
confidence
in
merits
,
as
in
it selfe
it
is
most
manifest
.
By
all
which
,
because
Sir
Humfrey
with
all
his
diuinitie
had
not
iudgement
to
distinguish
,
he
proueth
nothing
but
doth
onelie
hallucinate
betweene
trueth
and
falsehood
.
Neither
doth
the
example
of
B.
Gardiner
which
he
alledgeth
anie
whit
auaile
his
cause
;
for
suppose
that
be
true
which
he
affirmeth
of
him
,
to
wit
,
that
in
his
sicknes
he
set
the
merits
of
Christ
in
the
gap
to
stand
betwixt
Gods
Iudgment
&
his
owne
sinnes
,
yet
cannot
he
thence
inferre
that
therefore
the
Bishop
renounced
the
trueth
of
the
doctrine
of
merits
in
generall
,
nay
nor
his
owne
merits
in
particular
,
but
onelie
the
presumption
of
them
,
or
the
confidence
in
them
by
reason
of
the
vncertainetie
of
them
,
as
I
haue
alreadie
declared
.
Besides
that
,
this
which
he
is
affirmed
to
say
of
himselfe
being
but
onelie
a
relation
of
Fox
,
we
may
iustlie
doubt
of
the
trueth
of
it
.
For
he
hath
bene
long
since
hunted
to
his
hole
by
a
learned
Catholike
and
his
vnright
Reuerence
manifestlie
conuinced
to
be
a
Father
of
lyes
.
Wherefore
he
is
of
no
credit
with
vs
;
neither
can
his
testimonie
preuaile
against
vs
.
We
care
not
for
him
,
his
acts
and
monuments
are
of
no
moment
among
vs
,
his
testimonie
is
not
the
confession
of
a
Romanist
which
is
that
our
aduersary
promised
in
the
title
of
his
booke
,
and
we
expect
he
should
performe
:
and
to
omit
the
smale
credit
which
I
and
all
Catholikes
giue
to
the
relations
of
Master
Fox
,
yet
I
fynde
that
he
who
hath
dealt
so
falsely
with
others
,
hath
now
founde
one
of
his
owne
profession
who
dealt
not
verie
sincerelie
with
him
in
recounting
out
of
his
relation
the
passage
of
B.
Gardiner
at
his
death
,
for
whereas
Sir
Humfrey
will
needs
proue
by
the
testimonie
of
Fox
,
that
this
Bishop
renounced
Poperie
at
his
death
in
the
pointe
of
merits
:
yet
Fox
in
his
2622.
page
onelie
saith
thus
:
That
according
to
the
reporte
of
one
whome
he
will
not
name
(
perhaps
he
could
not
)
when
D.
Day
Bishop
of
Chichester
came
to
him
and
began
to
conforte
him
(
great
comfort
I
warant
you
)
with
wordes
of
Gods
promisse
and
free
iustification
in
the
blood
of
Christ
our
Sauiour
repeating
the
scriptures
to
him
.
Winchester
hearing
that
.
What
my
lord
,
quoth
he
,
will
you
open
that
gap
now
,
then
farewell
altogether
:
to
mee
and
such
other
in
my
case
you
may
speake
it
,
but
if
you
open
this
window
vnto
the
people
then
farewell
all
.
And
now
according
to
this
speech
of
B.
Gardiner
let
the
iudicious
reader
imagin
if
he
can
how
Sir
Humfrey
can
possibly
gather
that
he
renowced
Poprietie
and
that
a
wiser
man
will
not
rather
collect
the
contrarie
:
to
wit
that
altho'
dayes
wordes
might
be
vttered
to
him
&
others
of
learning
and
vnderstanding
without
danger
of
peruersion
,
but
not
perhaps
to
the
common
people
who
by
their
ignorance
and
frayletie
might
easilie
misinterpret
them
(
as
he
did
that
vttered
them
)
and
so
easilie
receiue
harme
by
them
not
withstanding
that
they
of
themselues
in
a
founde
fense
include
nothing
but
truth
.
The
knight
also
citeth
to
the
same
purpose
(
yet
to
no
purpose
)
Bellarmine
in
his
sixte
booke
of
Iustif
.
7.
chap.
and
his
testament
or
last
will
.
Saying
in
the
first
place
that
it
is
the
safest
way
to
rely
wholy
on
the
merits
of
Christ
Iesus
.
But
this
according
to
that
which
hath
bene
already
said
of
this
matter
,
is
at
the
most
but
onelie
a
renuntiation
of
presumption
or
ouermuch
confidence
in
our
owne
vncertaine
merits
,
as
is
most
apparent
out
of
Bellarmines
owne
doctrine
euen
in
the
verie
same
chapter
where
the
wordes
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
are
found
thoug
much
otherwise
then
by
him
they
are
related
as
afterwardes
I
will
declare
.
Now
in
the
second
place
,
the
wordes
are
these
.
I
beseech
him
(
that
is
God
)
saith
Bellar
.
that
he
would
admitte
me
into
the
companie
of
his
Saints
and
elect
,
not
as
a
valluer
of
merits
,
but
as
a
giuer
of
mercie
;
which
wordes
,
if
the
knigth
had
not
bene
ouermuch
distracted
,
he
would
easilie
haue
perceiued
that
they
fauour
his
intent
nothing
at
all
,
as
not
conteyning
any
kinde
of
renuntiation
of
the
due
estimation
of
merits
in
themselues
,
but
onelie
signifie
a
certaine
negatiue
renuntiation
of
confidence
in
his
owne
particular
deserts
at
the
hands
of
God
,
which
is
both
most
conformable
to
the
same
most
learned
and
virtuous
Cardinalls
owne
doctrine
in
his
booke
of
Iustification
before
cited
,
and
also
most
pious
in
it selfe
.
But
it
seemes
our
learned
Knigth
,
was
either
ignorantlie
or
malitiouslie
deceiued
in
the
true
meaning
of
Bellarmines
wordes
,
imagining
verie
sillilie
,
that
because
the
Cardinall
at
his
death
prayed
God
to
receiue
him
into
glorie
,
not
as
a
valuer
of
merits
,
he
had
held
God
for
no
valuer
of
merits
at
all
,
whereas
God
knowes
,
the
pious
Prelate
had
no
such
meaning
;
neither
doe
his
wordes
rightlie
construed
,
carrye
anie
such
sense
rather
doe
expresse
the
contrarie
by
tearming
God
a
valuer
of
merits
in
generall
:
although
on
the
otherside
considering
his
owne
weakenes
,
Albertus
Phigius
,
who
if
we
will
credit
him
,
telleth
vs
he
became
a
Caluinist
euen
in
this
verie
poynt
by
reading
of
Caluins
institutions
.
Thus
he
relateth
this
storie
and
will
haue
vs
take
it
on
the
worde
of
a
knight
,
but
he
must
pardon
vs
Romane
Catholikes
if
we
refuse
to
beleeue
it
vpon
the
bare
relation
of
an
aduersarie
,
as
houlding
our selues
to
haue
full
as
greate
authoritie
at
the
least
,
to
denie
it
as
he
hath
to
affirme
it
.
True
it
is
he
quoteth
a
place
of
the
authour
in
the
margin
,
but
citeth
not
a
worde
of
his
in
the
text
,
as
in
the
like
occasion
he
vseth
to
doe
,
which
causeth
me
to
persuade
my selfe
there
is
no
such
matter
to
be
founde
,
or
at
least
some
mistake
in
Sir
Humfrey
in
the
true
meaning
of
his
wordes
,
as
he
mistooke
in
Bellarmine
.
Especiallie
considering
that
Pighius
is
notoriouslie
knowen
to
haue
bene
a
professed
enemie
both
to
Luther
and
Caluin
as
his
workes
doe
testifie
.
And
that
Pighius
differeth
both
from
the
Lutherans
&
Caluinists
in
the
maine
paint
.
Of
iustification
it
is
most
manifest
by
his
whole
discourse
,
and
particularlie
in
that
he
absolutelie
affirmes
in
his
53.
page
of
his
Controuersie
of
iustification
,
that
faith
alone
though
it
be
neuer
so
perfect
is
not
sufficient
to
iustification
,
saying
:
Sed
fidem
hanc
solam
non
sufficere
nobis
&c.
in
which
place
although
he
doth
not
name
or
mention
Caluin
,
yet
doth
he
expresselie
and
professedlie
dispute
against
that
doctrine
of
his
and
Luther
which
putteth
iustification
in
faith
onelie
,
so
that
it
hence
plainelie
appeareth
that
if
Pighius
did
read
Caluins
Institutions
as
Sir
Humfrey
affirmeth
,
it
was
not
to
follow
them
but
to
confute
them
.
He
quoteth
also
Ruardus
Tapperus
to
what
purpose
I
know
not
except
it
be
to
fill
his
margent
for
ostentation
,
and
so
I
leaue
it
till
he
shall
further
please
to
declare
his
meaning
,
touching
that
citation
which
may
be
he
reserueth
for
a
fourth
edition
:
in
the
interim
that
Taperus
was
a
professed
papist
his
bookes
do
witnes
.
And
now
hauing
made
it
plainelie
appeere
that
not
one
of
the
Romanists
which
the
knight
citeth
in
this
section
euer
renounced
anie
point
of
Poperie
before
his
death
,
or
at
the
least
that
no
one
,
nor
all
the
testimonies
which
he
produceth
out
of
Romanists
doe
proue
anie
such
renunciation
,
as
he
auerreth
:
and
also
that
some
of
those
which
he
alledgeth
for
proofe
of
his
assertion
,
as
true
Romanists
,
were
not
as
much
as
in
externall
showe
of
the
Catholike
religion
long
before
their
death
,
and
some
of
them
in
no
parte
of
their
whole
life
as
is
manifest
in
Iewell
,
Fox
,
and
Cooke
,
and
consequentlie
could
not
in
reason
be
produced
by
him
as
witnesses
in
fauour
of
his
cause
noe
more
then
Martin
Luther
or
Iohn
Caluin
,
this
I
say
supposed
,
it
onelie
now
remayneth
that
for
the
conclusion
of
this
Period
we
doe
not
onelie
censure
the
Contents
of
this
section
for
vnsounde
doctrine
,
but
also
the
authour
of
it
for
an
indirect
and
false
dealer
in
the
confirmation
of
the
seame
.
THE
IV.
PERIOD
.
THE
fift
section
of
the
booke
is
about
the
impediments
of
reformation
of
such
thinges
as
the
knight
iudgeth
inexcusable
in
themselues
:
and
for
impediments
of
reformation
,
he
assigneth
wordlie
pollicie
and
profitte
,
the
thinges
which
he
calleth
inexcusable
are
the
doctrine
of
Purgatorie
,
Indulgences
,
prayer
for
the
dead
,
the
communion
vnder
one
kinde
,
worship
of
pictures
,
and
such
other
poynts
of
Catholike
doctrine
all
which
hee
temerariouslie
affirmeth
to
be
inexcusable
and
that
onelie
by
waye
of
an
odious
relation
of
then
in
particular
,
but
adduceth
nothing
whereby
to
proue
anie
one
of
them
to
be
such
indeede
,
and
so
neither
will
I
proue
anie
thing
against
him
heere
more
then
that
he
vttereth
diuerse
vntruthes
in
this
one
section
.
First
in
that
he
affirmeth
the
faith
of
Purgatorie
is
confirmed
by
Councells
meerelie
for
the
benefit
of
the
Pope
and
his
Clergie
,
which
is
nothing
els
but
a
manifest
calumniation
without
all
apparance
of
trueth
,
it
being
a
thing
wholie
improbable
and
contrarie
to
common
sense
,
either
that
so
manie
learned
,
graue
and
pious
men
as
vse
to
be
assembled
in
Councells
should
determine
anie
thing
as
matter
of
faith
meerelie
for
anie
Temporall
respect
whatsoeuer
:
or
that
the
laitie
of
the
Christian
world
,
especiallie
Princes
,
Kinges
and
Emperours
being
so
much
more
powerfull
as
they
are
knowen
to
bee
,
then
the
Pope
and
Clergie
,
should
condescend
to
a
matter
of
such
indignitie
as
the
knight
would
haue
it
and
so
much
to
their
cost
,
if
they
did
not
otherwise
assure
themselues
both
of
the
integrity
of
those
who
meete
in
those
assemblies
,
and
also
of
the
trueth
of
the
doctrine
in
it selfe
.
Besides
that
the
same
is
manifestlie
conuinced
of
falsitie
,
for
that
prayer
for
the
deade
,
and
consequentlie
Purgatorie
,
was
knowen
in
the
world
before
eyther
Pope
,
or
Councells
were
extant
as
appeareth
by
the
historie
of
the
second
booke
of
the
Macchabies
the
12.
chapter
which
our
aduersaries
themselues
cannot
denie
to
be
a
true
historie
,
though
they
impudentlie
denie
it
to
be
Canonicall
Scripture
against
the
plaine
testimonie
of
S.
Augustine
who
affirmeth
the
Church
to
hould
it
for
such
though
the
Iewes
hold
the
contrarie
.
His
second
vntruth
it
in
the
end
of
the
39.
page
,
where
he
affirmeth
,
that
the
Romanists
in
the
psalters
leaue
out
the
second
commaundement
.
This
second
vntruth
of
the
knight
inuolueth
a
double
vntruth
,
the
first
is
in
that
he
saith
the
Romanists
leaue
out
the
foresaid
commaundement
in
their
psalters
,
whereas
it
is
well
knowne
that
in
the
whole
Psalter
the
second
commaundement
is
not
to
be
found
,
at
the
least
formally
as
it
is
one
of
the
ten
.
But
this
vntruth
because
I
perceiue
it
proceedes
rather
of
ignorance
than
malice
,
I
am
content
to
pardon
.
Yet
because
when
he
said
the
Romanists
lefte
it
out
of
their
psalters
,
he
either
meant
they
lefte
it
out
of
the
text
of
Scripture
,
or
that
they
left
it
out
of
their
catechismes
onely
,
I
answer
that
whethersoeuer
he
meant
,
he
cannot
be
excused
for
telling
an
vntruth
,
first
because
he
falsely
supposeth
for
certaine
,
that
to
be
the
second
commaundement
which
indeede
is
but
an
explication
of
the
first
,
in
the
opinion
both
of
S.
Augustine
and
either
all
or
almost
all
other
diuines
of
later
yeares
.
Secondly
because
those
same
authours
:
who
hould
those
same
wordes
.
Thou
shalt
not
make
to
this
selfe
any
grauen
image
,
to
be
the
second
commandement
,
doe
not
hould
that
the
Images
of
Christ
and
his
saints
,
and
due
honour
of
them
,
are
prohibited
by
that
precept
among
Christians
,
but
onely
a
gentilicall
or
idolatrous
vse
of
pictures
or
grauen
images
of
false
Gods
and
other
such
abuses
as
be
repugnant
to
the
due
honour
of
the
true
and
onely
God
.
Lastly
it
is
also
false
that
all
Catechismes
leaue
out
that
precept
,
if
precept
it
be
,
as
appeareth
by
the
Catechisme
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
and
of
Canisius
and
some
others
.
So
that
you
see
now
that
the
knight
is
euery
way
conuinced
of
an
vntruth
.
And
although
it
is
true
that
in
diuerse
of
their
Catechismes
the
Romanists
leaue
out
all
the
rest
of
the
first
commaundement
as
they
lie
in
the
text
of
the
20.
of
Exodus
excepting
those
:
Thou
shall
haue
no
other
Gods
but
me
.
Yet
they
doe
not
so
with
any
sinister
intention
,
as
the
reformers
vniunstly
accuse
them
to
doe
,
in
regard
,
it
is
well
knowne
that
those
who
vse
to
instruct
children
in
their
Catechisme
notwithstanding
they
vse
not
to
fill
childrens
heads
with
such
proclamations
against
grauen
Images
as
the
reformers
doe
,
yet
they
neuer
omitte
to
declare
and
explicate
exactly
the
whole
tenour
of
the
words
of
the
commaundement
,
inculcating
most
diligently
the
true
sense
of
the
same
and
teaching
them
how
farre
it
is
true
that
images
and
the
worshippe
of
them
in
prohibited
by
that
precept
,
&
the
difference
betweene
the
vse
of
Christian
images
and
those
which
according
to
the
practice
of
those
times
were
vnlawfull
.
But
the
true
reason
why
Romanists
most
commonly
omitte
those
wordes
:
Thou
shalt
not
make
to
thy selfe
any
grauen
thing
,
and
the
rest
,
is
because
Catechismes
being
onely
a
short
summe
of
Religion
,
it
is
fitting
they
be
most
briefe
and
compendious
as
being
so
more
easy
to
learne
and
more
conformable
to
the
capacity
of
children
,
then
if
they
were
large
and
prolixe
in
wordes
,
especially
considering
that
that
which
wanteth
in
wordes
may
farre
more
easily
be
added
by
the
master
by
may
of
cxplication
then
many
lines
can
be
committed
to
memory
by
weake
,
and
vnapt
schollers
.
Neither
doe
the
Romanists
make
catechismes
for
Iewes
and
Gentiles
but
for
Christians
and
Catholiks
and
so
it
were
both
superfluous
and
impertitinent
to
put
in
all
the
wordes
of
the
text
or
more
as
the
reformers
doe
,
some
of
which
doe
belong
rather
to
the
law
of
moyses
then
to
the
Ghospell
of
Iesus
Christ
,
and
therefore
for
the
verie
same
reason
the
Romanists
leaue
out
of
their
Catechismes
diuerse
words
of
the
precept
of
the
Sabaoth
,
as
iudging
them
vnnecessarie
for
the
instruction
of
Christian
children
.
As
also
because
according
to
the
doctrine
of
S.
Augustin
in
his
question
vpon
this
commaundement
,
those
onely
words
:
Thou
shalt
haue
no
other
Gods
but
me
:
are
the
whole
substance
of
the
first
commaundement
,
and
the
same
in
sense
with
the
other
which
immediatly
follow
in
the
text
,
to
wit
,
thou
shalt
not
make
to
thy selfe
any
grauen
thing
,
by
which
grauen
thing
S.
Augustin
in
the
same
place
vnderstandeth
an
idol
&
not
any
grauen
image
as
the
reformers
doe
corruptedly
vse
to
translate
and
commonly
put
it
so
in
their
Catechismes
for
the
false
instruction
of
their
children
.
And
hence
it
plainely
appeareth
that
the
Romanists
leaue
not
out
of
any
of
their
bookes
of
Christian
doctrine
anie
of
the
ten
commandements
,
but
rather
that
the
reformed
brothers
put
in
one
more
then
either
according
to
Scripture
or
the
doctrine
of
S.
Augustin
they
ought
to
doe
,
as
by
the
true
diuision
and
number
of
them
at
the
end
of
this
worke
shall
the
be
more
manifestly
declared
.
Thirdly
it
is
vntrue
which
he
affirmeth
,
though
by
way
of
insinuation
onely
,
that
the
Romanists
doe
adore
a
piece
of
bread
.
For
it
is
well
knowne
they
adore
not
the
bread
but
that
which
christ
,
himselfe
affirmed
to
be
his
body
,
for
which
adoration
besides
the
scripture
,
we
say
with
S.
Augustin
:
nemo
illam
carnem
manducat
nisi
prius
adorauerit
.
Aug.
in
ps.
98.
and
so
this
,
though
Sir
Humfrey
as
it
seemes
was
ashamed
to
vtter
it
plainely
,
yet
it
is
no
lesse
then
a
plaine
leasing
.
Besides
these
vntrueths
which
I
haue
now
rehearsed
he
hath
diuerse
very
idle
positions
either
false
or
friuolous
,
as
for
example
that
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
depends
vpon
Purgatory
,
that
by
defect
of
the
Priests
intention
the
worshipper
of
the
bodie
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
may
commit
flat
Idolatry
and
the
like
,
these
because
they
are
left
by
him
vnproued
,
I
will
also
leaue
them
vnrefuted
till
such
time
as
I
shall
see
his
proofes
produced
,
and
in
the
meane
time
I
condemne
this
whole
section
,
as
containing
matter
both
idle
,
false
,
calumnious
,
and
full
of
inuectiue
bitternesse
and
puritannicall
spleene
against
the
Romanists
accusing
them
that
they
turne
the
necks
of
Scriptures
cleane
about
;
&
that
it
is
a
common
practice
of
their
Church
of
Rome
to
make
greater
price
of
victory
then
verity
,
&
other
such
matter
as
is
vnworthy
to
be
published
either
by
printe
or
pen
.
THE
V.
PERIOD
.
THE
knight
in
his
sixt
section
promiseth
to
refute
that
which
he
tearmeth
the
Common
practice
of
his
aduersaries
in
their
refusall
of
reformation
,
because
saith
he
,
we
cannot
assigne
the
precise
time
when
errours
came
in
.
This
I
confesse
is
a
matter
of
importance
,
and
if
Sir
Humfrey
can
performe
his
promise
he
will
in
parte
recouer
the
credit
which
he
hath
formerly
lost
;
if
not
,
his
honour
must
still
lye
in
the
dust
.
Now
to
performe
his
promise
he
must
know
that
it
is
not
sufficient
for
him
&
his
partners
to
assigne
the
time
and
persons
when
and
by
whom
those
points
of
doctrine
,
which
they
hould
to
be
erroneously
maintained
in
the
Roman
Church
,
were
first
broached
,
but
they
must
also
by
some
meanes
or
other
conuince
them
to
be
errours
indeede
.
And
as
long
as
Sr
Humfrey
failes
in
the
demonstration
of
either
of
these
,
it
is
manifest
he
doth
not
performe
his
worde
.
He
saith
indeede
very
confidently
in
the
beginning
of
this
section
,
that
they
(
meaning
as
I
suppose
himselfe
and
his
companions
in
sect
)
are
all
eye-witnesses
that
the
errours
,
of
the
Roman
Church
are
this
daye
so
notorious
that
a
very
child
may
perceaue
them
;
but
what
is
this
to
the
purpose
?
this
is
but
a
friuolous
repetition
of
their
owne
bare
wordes
,
this
is
no
lawfull
proofe
among
aduersaries
,
this
is
no
demonstration
,
it
is
not
this
Romane
Catholiks
are
bound
to
stand
too
,
this
is
no
reasonable
satisfaction
for
vs
or
any
other
be
he
neuer
so
indifferent
.
We
must
be
conuinced
of
errours
by
Scriptures
,
by
consent
of
auncient
Fathers
,
by
plaine
definitions
of
approoued
Councels
.
And
till
you
Sir
Humfrey
,
or
some
of
your
consorts
make
this
point
cleare
,
we
acknowledge
no
errours
in
our
Church
,
and
by
consequence
no
necessity
of
reformation
in
that
nature
,
as
your
discourse
in
this
section
doth
falsely
suppose
.
Moreouer
touching
the
assignation
of
time
&
persons
,
when
and
by
whom
the
pretended
errours
of
the
Roman
Church
had
their
beginning
,
it
is
apparant
the
knight
is
in
a
great
errour
,
in
that
he
persuadeth
himselfe
that
the
Romanists
exact
of
the
reformers
to
assigne
the
time
and
persons
when
and
by
whom
such
errours
as
they
attribut
to
their
Church
were
first
broached
:
For
the
Romanists
do
not
stand
precisely
vpon
assignation
of
the
very
first
time
and
persons
,
or
the
very
first
Authours
of
those
supposed
errours
,
no
they
put
no
such
rigorous
taske
vpon
the
reformers
,
but
onely
oblige
them
to
shewe
when
they
were
first
so
notorious
and
apparent
in
the
world
,
as
both
they
&
their
authours
were
condemned
in
any
authenticall
Councell
or
assembly
,
and
this
is
that
onely
which
the
Catholikes
demaund
of
their
aduersaries
,
and
not
that
which
Sir
Humfrey
imagineth
;
and
therefore
whatsoeuer
he
produceth
in
this
section
for
the
confirmation
of
his
intent
in
that
particular
,
proceedeth
vpon
false
supposition
,
and
consequently
proueth
nothing
but
his
owne
ignorance
.
That
which
is
a
thing
not
onely
proper
to
Sir
Humfrey
in
diuerse
places
of
his
booke
,
but
also
so
generally
incident
to
the
rest
of
his
conreformers
as
in
reading
their
workes
I
haue
often
lamented
their
case
to
see
them
so
labour
in
vaine
like
hounds
spending
vpon
a
false
sent
.
And
surely
nothing
els
but
the
foresaid
false
supposition
was
the
cause
why
Sir
Humfrey
proceeded
in
this
point
in
so
farre
a
different
manner
as
he
doth
from
the
rest
of
his
fellowes
.
He
not
taking
vpon
him
as
they
ordinarily
doe
(
tho'
without
effect
)
to
assigne
the
time
when
those
imagined
errours
first
began
,
and
who
were
the
first
authours
of
the
same
;
but
as
it
were
supposing
that
to
be
impossible
,
or
els
aduerticeing
the
ill
successe
which
his
fellow
sectaries
haue
had
in
prosectuing
their
waye
,
fell
vpon
a
quite
contrary
course
,
indeauouring
to
shewe
a
distinction
and
difference
betwixt
the
heresies
of
the
Arians
,
Pelagians
,
and
Donatists
,
and
the
errours
which
he
supposeth
to
be
in
the
Roman
Church
:
graunting
that
those
heresies
being
such
as
did
(
saith
he
)
indaunger
the
foundation
and
openly
disturbed
the
Church
,
might
easely
be
discouered
,
adding
that
their
first
authours
de
facto
were
obserued
and
the
times
knowne
&
place
pointed
at
.
But
the
change
of
the
Romanists
doctrine
,
saith
he
,
was
a
secret
Apostasie
scarcely
to
be
knowne
or
discouered
,
condemning
also
that
for
an
impertinent
demaunde
which
the
Catholikes
vsually
require
of
the
reformers
,
to
wit
,
that
they
shewe
the
first
time
and
produce
the
first
authours
of
the
supposed
Romish
errours
;
by
this
shewing
himselfe
very
desirous
to
rid
his
handes
of
so
hard
a
taske
as
he
hath
vndertaken
,
as
doth
plainely
appeare
by
those
examples
and
similitudes
which
he
vseth
for
that
purpose
tho'
not
very
well
applied
.
And
now
this
being
the
sense
of
the
first
parte
of
this
section
,
let
vs
briefely
examine
how
soundly
he
proueth
his
intent
.
True
it
is
that
the
Roman
Catholiks
,
as
I
haue
said
before
,
doe
not
oblige
the
knight
nor
anie
of
his
consorts
to
answer
so
metaphisically
to
their
demaund
as
he
erroneously
persuadeth
himselfe
.
But
they
onely
vrge
the
reformers
to
name
the
authours
and
time
of
such
supposed
errours
in
a
morall
manner
;
that
is
who
they
were
that
haue
beene
in
anie
lawfull
Councell
condemned
for
either
the
broachers
or
publike
defendours
of
those
he
calles
errours
.
Which
is
a
demaunde
so
farre
from
impertinencie
,
that
there
hath
neuer
beene
any
notorious
errour
in
the
Church
of
God
which
hath
not
beene
noted
so
by
the
writers
of
the
seuerall
ages
wherein
they
liued
,
or
at
the
least
,
by
some
others
presentlie
after
their
time
.
And
so
hence
it
appeareth
manifestlie
,
that
the
Roman
Catholikes
being
no
wise
guiltie
of
impertinencie
in
their
demaund
,
yet
Sir
Humfrey
is
most
impertinent
in
his
answer
,
and
not
onelie
an
impertinent
alledger
of
Scriptures
,
but
also
a
peruerse
detorter
of
the
same
,
as
interpreting
them
by
the
direction
of
his
owne
priuate
spirit
,
and
fathering
vpon
Christ
that
which
he
neuer
thought
nor
intended
.
And
this
being
the
substance
of
his
answer
to
the
Catholikes
,
which
in
trueth
hath
no
substance
in
it
:
yet
he
still
prosecuteth
the
same
making
a
greate
flourish
out
of
the
circumstances
of
the
same
parable
adding
that
the
tares
were
sowen
by
the
enemie
when
men
where
a
fleepe
,
and
that
by
consequence
they
could
not
see
him
and
much
lesse
produce
him
.
I
confesse
that
there
both
haue
bene
and
be
yet
in
the
world
who
by
reason
of
the
excessiue
moisture
of
their
braiue
haue
sleeped
both
verie
soundlie
and
verie
long
.
I
know
the
historie
of
the
seauen
sleepers
who
slept
some
hundreths
of
yeares
.
But
I
neuer
heard
of
anie
kinde
of
Congregation
of
people
that
all
and
euerie
one
of
them
sleeped
about
a
thousand
yeares
together
and
that
so
profundelie
as
that
not
one
of
them
did
euer
so
much
as
once
dreame
of
the
enimie
who
sowed
tares
in
their
field
.
Is
it
possible
that
all
the
good
men
of
the
houses
in
all
that
space
of
tyme
and
in
euerie
place
should
haue
bene
so
drowsie
and
so
ouercome
with
sleepe
as
none
of
them
could
not
one
tyme
or
other
awake
&
catch
the
theefe
before
the
daies
of
Luther
.
Surelie
there
was
neuer
a
Puritane
in
the
world
in
all
that
long
space
of
tyme
,
for
if
there
had
bene
anie
,
some
of
them
would
infalliblie
haue
awaked
,
their
hott
brauies
and
fierie
spirits
would
neuer
haue
suffered
them
to
lie
so
long
in
a
lethargie
,
but
vp
they
would
haue
beene
and
layd
about
them
most
vallantlie
with
the
whole
bulke
of
the
Bible
,
and
haue
gone
to
cuffes
with
Pennance
,
Purgatorie
and
prayer
to
Saints
,
with
pictures
,
Pope
and
praier
for
the
dead
,
with
merits
,
masse
,
and
monasteries
,
with
confession
,
tradition
,
and
transubstantiation
,
with
Indults
,
fasts
,
and
satisfactions
.
These
I
say
and
all
other
such
like
tares
as
the
knight
esteemes
them
,
had
bene
by
those
Zealous
Paterfamillians
rooted
out
as
soone
as
euer
they
peeped
out
of
the
earth
,
if
God
had
not
permitted
them
to
take
a
greate
quantitie
of
Diapodium
or
pouder
dormant
by
force
of
which
,
as
I
suppose
,
they
were
all
so
lulled
a
sleepe
as
not
one
of
them
could
once
awake
till
the
tyme
of
Doctour
Luther
,
who
if
he
had
chaunced
to
haue
taken
one
onelie
dramme
of
the
same
receipt
,
it
is
more
then
probable
that
greate
worke
of
his
had
laine
vndone
till
this
present
day
,
and
perhaps
for
euer
.
From
this
parable
Sir
Humfrey
passeth
to
confirme
his
answer
by
reasons
,
saying
that
the
doctrine
which
they
complaine
of
his
a
mysterie
of
iniquitie
,
and
mysteries
are
secret
and
worke
not
openlie
and
publikly
but
by
degrees
,
leasurelie
,
cunninglie
and
warilie
to
auoyde
discoueries
.
Thus
he
,
in
which
wordes
you
see
he
cals
errours
a
mysterie
,
but
describes
them
rather
like
a
monster
then
a
mysterie
,
attributing
such
subtiltie
vnto
them
as
if
they
had
the
vse
of
reason
;
whereas
all
errours
which
are
such
trulie
,
are
by
nature
voyd
of
reason
,
and
so
,
no
mysteries
but
rather
monsters
.
Hee
saith
they
are
secret
and
worke
by
decrees
:
And
it
is
true
,
errours
may
be
secret
for
a
short
tyme
,
but
long
they
cannot
,
especiallie
such
as
we
heere
speake
of
,
that
is
publiklie
defended
by
a
whole
Church
and
all
or
most
of
them
manie
ages
together
.
Mentall
and
priuate
errours
may
be
so
smothered
as
not
onelie
not
by
degrees
,
but
so
as
they
neuer
come
to
light
and
knowledge
of
the
world
at
all
,
but
vocall
errours
proposed
and
published
to
the
people
cannot
possible
be
long
vnknowne
or
vndiscouered
.
Witnes
the
errours
of
Luther
and
Caluin
and
of
all
other
condemned
heretikes
,
all
which
doubtlesse
for
a
tyme
they
were
,
meerelie
mentall
,
yet
euen
before
the
death
of
their
authours
notice
was
taken
of
them
,
&
perhaps
also
they
were
publikelie
condemned
.
And
so
we
see
by
this
reason
Sir
Humfrey
proueth
nothing
to
this
purpose
,
but
tels
vs
of
nothing
but
meere
impossibillities
contrarie
both
to
reason
and
common
sense
.
Neither
doth
it
auaile
him
for
defence
of
his
answer
to
saye
that
errours
being
at
first
oftentimes
in
one
or
few
persons
onelie
,
they
cannot
easilie
be
espied
,
for
this
is
not
that
the
Catholikes
vrge
him
too
,
we
haue
tould
him
alreadie
that
wee
will
not
deale
so
rigorouslie
with
him
,
we
are
content
to
graunt
vnto
him
that
errours
onelie
so
farre
published
,
were
not
easilie
,
especiallie
by
his
drowsie
consociates
,
to
be
discouered
:
neuerthelesse
we
see
no
reason
at
all
why
our
supposed
errours
being
so
publiquelie
taught
,
penned
,
and
preached
as
they
were
long
before
either
Luther
or
Wicklifs
tyme
should
not
haue
bene
knowen
for
errours
if
such
they
were
,
long
before
either
of
their
daies
,
This
is
the
point
of
the
question
,
this
is
the
demaunde
the
Roman
Catholikes
vrge
,
you
Reformers
are
to
answer
,
as
longe
as
you
goe
about
the
bush
as
you
doe
,
and
answer
not
directlie
,
neither
your
Euangelicall
parable
nor
your
cockatrice
egge
,
though
you
write
it
with
a
greate
letter
to
make
it
seeme
bigger
,
will
serue
your
turne
,
they
are
but
onelie
similitudes
or
examples
ill
applied
,
they
prooue
nothing
but
onelie
serue
you
for
a
vaine
flourish
.
Exempla
illustrant
non
probant
,
especiallie
if
they
be
equiuocall
as
yours
be
.
And
as
for
your
distinction
of
publike
heresie
and
secret
Apostacie
,
it
is
much
more
friuolous
then
all
the
rest
you
haue
brought
for
the
proofe
of
your
purpose
in
this
section
.
And
although
perhaps
you
shewed
no
small
subtiltie
in
it
,
as
you
thought
,
yet
is
it
in
it selfe
a
most
ignorant
piece
of
doctrine
,
for
that
not
onelie
the
common
and
vsuall
sense
of
the
worde
Apostasie
,
but
the
verie
etimologie
of
the
same
worde
,
which
signifieth
a
defection
or
discession
,
doth
demonstrate
that
the
thing
signified
by
it
must
be
a
much
more
externall
and
publike
action
in
it selfe
then
heresie
vsed
to
be
,
and
so
that
which
is
ordinarilie
and
vulgarilie
called
Apostasie
,
must
be
publike
and
not
secret
;
and
therefore
when
anie
errour
comes
to
that
degree
of
malice
as
it
may
truely
be
called
Apostasie
in
this
sense
,
it
must
of
necessitie
be
knowne
,
and
consequentlie
it
is
such
as
cannot
be
kept
secret
but
may
be
most
easilie
discerned
,
yea
much
more
easilie
then
anie
heresie
how
publike
soeuer
it
bee
,
as
being
an
aggrauating
circunstance
of
the
same
.
And
thus
we
see
that
for
the
knight
to
yeeld
a
reason
why
the
errours
of
the
Roman
Church
could
not
easilie
be
discouered
,
because
they
were
secret
Apostasie
,
is
both
most
absurd
in
itselfe
,
and
also
inuolueth
a
contradiction
in
regard
it
includeth
that
a
thing
may
be
Apostasie
that
is
a
thing
of
it
owne
selfe
publike
,
and
yet
remaine
so
secret
that
it
cannot
be
discouered
.
Neither
is
that
which
Sir
Humfrey
farther
addeth
in
the
same
place
lesse
absurde
to
witt
that
secret
Apostasie
worketh
warelie
and
closelie
in
the
tyme
of
Darkenes
when
the
seruants
of
the
husbandman
are
asleepe
,
for
if
all
Apostasie
as
it
is
commonlie
taken
,
must
be
publike
,
as
I
haue
showed
,
how
can
it
then
truelie
be
said
to
worke
in
darkenes
or
by
night
?
or
how
can
the
seede
of
it
be
scattered
at
vnawares
to
the
seruants
of
the
husbandman
,
certainlie
except
the
seruants
be
so
sluggish
that
they
sleepe
both
nights
and
dayes
,
moneths
and
yeeres
,
yea
and
manie
hundreth
of
yeeres
together
,
naye
and
all
the
daies
of
their
life
,
they
cannot
but
discouer
the
tares
of
Apostasie
,
which
is
not
euer
in
seede
as
the
knight
falselie
supposeth
,
but
is
the
increase
or
rather
full
growth
it selfe
,
or
yet
rather
the
ouergrouth
of
the
crop
of
heresie
which
is
truelie
the
seede
of
it
.
From
hence
the
knight
proceedeth
to
the
second
parte
of
his
section
,
in
which
he
endeauoureth
to
shewe
vs
an
vndeniable
trueth
(
as
he
termeth
it
)
that
some
opinions
were
condemned
in
the
Primatiue
Church
for
eroneous
and
superstitious
vhich
now
are
established
for
articles
os
faith
in
the
Roman
Church
.
And
for
this
his
position
he
produceth
an
instance
out
of
S.
Augustin
lib.
de
moribus
Eccles.
Cath.
cap.
34.
in
which
place
he
complaines
that
in
his
tyme
the
ruder
sort
of
people
were
intangled
with
superstition
euen
in
the
true
Church
;
I
my selfe
(
saith
he
)
know
manie
that
are
worshipers
of
Images
and
sepulchers
whom
the
Church
condemneth
and
seeketh
euerie
daie
by
correction
to
amend
them
as
vngratious
children
:
Thus
farre
Sir
Humfrey
out
of
S.
Augustin
.
To
which
I
answer
that
this
place
of
S.
Augustin
hath
bene
so
often
obiected
by
the
moderne
sectaries
that
it
is
worne
quite
thred
bare
with
handling
,
and
I
persuade
my selfe
that
all
the
Catholike
authours
that
euer
writt
of
controuersies
haue
sufficientlie
answered
it
if
it
came
in
their
way
.
Neuerthelesse
least
Sir
Humfrey
should
thinke
himselfe
neglected
by
me
,
Now
vpon
the
foresaid
wordes
of
Saint
Augustin
,
Sir
Humfrey
addeth
a
descant
of
his
owne
,
in
which
he
comits
diuerse
faults
.
First
in
that
he
saith
that
although
S.
Aug.
did
note
some
people
of
his
time
for
superstitious
worshippers
of
images
,
yet
did
hee
neither
name
the
authours
of
that
errour
,
nor
sheweth
the
tyme
when
it
began
tacitlie
,
intending
hence
to
inferre
that
neither
are
the
reformers
bounde
to
assigne
the
names
of
the
authours
of
those
errours
which
they
attribute
to
the
Roman
Church
,
nor
yet
the
tyme
of
their
defence
of
them
.
But
this
inference
of
the
knight
is
no
conclusion
at
all
,
for
that
the
case
of
S.
Augustines
tyme
which
is
the
antecedent
of
the
foresaid
illation
of
the
knights
,
is
farre
different
from
the
case
of
the
reformers
as
well
for
that
S.
Augustine
speaketh
of
an
errour
which
happened
in
his
owne
daies
(
as
Sir
Humfrey
confesseth
)
and
perhappes
by
such
persons
as
he
could
not
name
without
preiudice
of
their
fame
,
as
being
such
as
practised
those
superstitions
so
priuatelie
that
they
were
not
knowen
to
more
,
or
at
the
least
,
not
to
manie
more
then
himselfe
;
after
which
manner
preachers
do
vse
to
reprehend
vices
of
persons
knowen
vnto
them
,
and
yet
name
them
not
:
as
also
and
chiefelie
because
S.
Augustine
was
neuer
demaunded
of
them
in
particular
,
or
anie
other
waye
vrged
to
declare
their
names
.
None
of
all
which
circumstances
occurre
in
the
case
betwixt
the
Reformers
and
the
Romanists
,
and
so
out
of
the
wordes
of
S.
Augustine
,
which
be
the
Antecedent
of
the
knights
argument
,
no
true
consequence
can
be
deduced
against
the
Romanists
.
this
corruption
which
S.
Augustin
and
the
Church
of
his
time
condemned
for
superstition
was
confirmed
400.
yeeres
after
by
the
second
Councell
of
Nice
for
Catholike
doctrine
,
and
is
now
decreed
by
the
Councell
of
Trent
for
an
article
of
faith
.
Thus
the
knight
.
But
this
is
all
false
,
and
grounded
onelie
vpon
an
erroneous
persuasion
of
his
owne
,
videlicet
,
that
the
worship
which
those
people
of
which
S.
Augustin
speaketh
,
gaue
to
pictures
,
is
the
same
which
the
Roman
Church
practizeth
at
this
daye
according
to
the
definition
of
those
two
Councells
;
that
which
he
neither
proueth
heere
,
nor
can
euer
proue
in
anie
other
place
,
as
being
manifest
by
the
doctrine
of
those
same
Councells
in
this
point
,
that
they
both
condemned
this
superstitious
practice
of
those
people
reprehended
by
S.
Augustin
&
the
Church
of
his
age
,
euen
as
much
as
he
did
in
those
former
tymes
.
And
so
neither
this
instance
framed
by
Sir
Humfrey
out
of
S.
Augustins
wordes
,
nor
the
whole
argument
it selfe
concludes
any
part
of
his
intent
in
this
section
:
but
rather
conuinceth
by
the
fact
of
the
same
S.
Augustin
that
no
errour
can
possible
so
secretlie
steale
into
the
Church
,
but
it
is
either
presently
or
within
a
small
tyme
espied
and
noted
for
such
by
one
authenticall
authour
or
other
;
which
is
quite
contrary
to
the
position
which
the
knight
indeauoureth
heere
to
establish
and
whoely
conformable
to
the
tenet
of
the
Roman
Church
in
this
matter
.
After
this
Sir
Hum.
maketh
a
large
repetition
of
diuerse
points
of
doctrine
defended
by
the
Church
of
Rome
,
as
if
they
were
farre
different
from
the
intention
of
those
who
first
taught
or
ordeined
them
,
but
for
this
his
conceipt
he
bringeth
no
proofe
at
all
,
and
so
I
leaue
it
as
a
voluntary
tenet
founded
vpon
his
owne
small
authority
.
True
it
is
he
produceth
diuerse
authours
for
the
confirmation
of
the
same
alledging
them
all
for
Romanists
,
and
yet
some
of
them
are
not
so
esteemed
to
be
,
as
is
manifest
in
Cassander
,
and
Agrippa
,
which
the
Roman
Church
houlds
not
for
her
true
children
but
rather
for
illegitimate
.
Be
citeth
also
Ioannes
Ferus
who
altho'
he
was
at
the
lest
once
a
Romanist
,
whatsoeuer
he
was
afterwardes
,
yet
there
haue
beene
noted
in
his
workes
diuerse
ill
sounding
propositions
,
whether
it
be
for
that
his
bookes
haue
beene
corrupted
by
the
sectaries
of
these
times
as
by
some
editions
of
his
workes
may
be
iustly
suspected
,
or
whether
it
be
that
the
man
was
something
more
rash
in
his
assertions
then
he
ought
to
haue
beene
.
But
howsoeuer
it
falleth
out
with
him
in
that
nature
,
yet
the
place
cited
out
of
him
by
Sir
Humfrey
if
it
be
rightly
vnderstood
,
it
proueth
no
more
but
that
by
the
priuate
abuses
and
superstitions
of
some
particular
men
,
many
things
ordeined
by
holy
men
with
a
good
intention
,
haue
receiued
some
accidentall
chaunge
.
And
although
Ferus
exemplifieth
in
the
feasts
of
the
Church
,
Ceremonies
,
images
,
Masses
,
monasteries
,
yet
certaine
it
is
his
meaning
was
not
that
all
these
are
either
vnlawfull
or
superstitious
,
or
that
they
are
new
articles
of
faith
or
not
to
be
vsed
in
the
Church
of
God
,
as
the
knight
and
his
companions
would
haue
them
to
be
,
but
onely
out
of
a
pious
zeale
he
wished
that
such
abuses
might
be
corrected
as
he
perceiued
in
his
daies
to
haue
crept
into
the
practice
and
vse
of
the
same
;
which
is
a
thing
so
farre
from
Sir
Humfreys
purpose
of
prouing
an
alteration
in
the
Doctrine
of
auncient
tymes
,
as
it
is
both
very
conformable
to
reason
,
and
allso
to
the
decree
of
reformation
made
in
the
Councell
of
Trent
aboue
cited
.
He
citeth
allso
Marius
de
schis
.
&
Concil.
Et
Polidore
de
inuent
.
rerum
,
as
speaking
of
the
vncertainty
of
the
entrance
into
the
Church
of
Priests
mariage
.
But
this
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
the
knight
heere
treateth
.
For
how
I
pray
you
doth
this
proue
that
there
are
errours
of
faith
in
the
Roman
Church
,
whereas
the
restraint
of
mariage
of
Priests
it selfe
,
is
no
article
of
faith
as
Sir
Humfrey
ignorantly
supposeth
,
but
onely
a
precept
of
the
Church
and
a
matter
of
manners
;
and
yet
in
case
it
were
so
in
it selfe
,
neuerthelesse
certaine
it
is
that
the
question
or
difficultie
about
the
first
begining
of
the
restraint
(
of
such
onelie
the
cited
authours
speake
)
is
no
matter
of
faith
and
consequentlie
can
be
no
errour
euen
in
Sir
Humfreyes
owne
false
supposition
of
errours
in
the
Roman
Church
.
To
omitte
that
suppose
the
first
begining
of
the
restrainte
of
marriage
in
Priests
were
truelie
an
article
of
faith
in
the
Roman
Church
,
yet
this
being
but
one
particular
instance
or
example
drawne
out
of
two
Romanists
onelie
,
it
cannot
sufficientlie
proue
that
generall
position
of
Sir
Humfrey
,
to
witte
,
that
there
was
a
knowne
tyme
when
those
tenets
(
meaning
the
points
of
doctrine
which
the
Councell
of
Trent
defined
)
were
not
certainelie
knowne
or
generallie
receiued
by
the
Roman
Church
;
since
that
,
according
to
the
rules
of
Logike
no
generall
proposition
can
be
inferred
out
of
a
particular
,
and
that
touching
the
rest
of
the
articles
of
the
Roman
doctrine
,
the
reformers
are
so
farre
from
the
assignation
of
the
time
of
their
beginning
,
that
Sir
Humfrey
him selfe
euen
in
this
verie
place
is
forced
to
hould
this
precise
tyme
of
the
beginning
of
the
same
to
be
vnnecessarie
to
be
assigned
.
And
altho'
by
reason
that
both
those
authours
are
censured
in
the
expurgatorie
Index
,
we
are
not
bounde
to
giue
credit
vnto
them
:
yet
this
I
saye
that
supposing
they
are
both
here
produced
to
testifie
that
the
beginning
of
the
and
prohibition
of
Preists
mariage
can
not
be
assigned
,
it
is
rather
a
great
argument
that
it
was
appointed
by
the
primatiue
Church
itselfe
then
introduced
of
later
yeares
.
Besides
this
Sir
Humfrey
doth
falsifie
Polydor
in
the
place
he
citeth
,
for
he
doth
not
affirme
that
mariage
of
Preists
was
not
altogether
prohibited
til
the
tyme
of
Gregorie
the
7.
but
that
it
could
not
be
taken
away
till
that
tyme
.
Alijs
snper
alijs
promulgatis
legibus
non
ante
Pontificatum
Gregorij
7.
coniugium
adimi
occidentalibus
sacerdotibus
potuit
.
Pol.
lib.
5.
cap.
4.
edit.
Antuerp
.
1554.
Cassander
altho'
Romanists
esteeme
not
of
his
authoritie
either
pro
or
contra
,
yet
here
he
is
corrupted
by
Sir
Humfrey
for
companie
lest
he
should
laff
at
his
followes
,
where
for
those
wordes
non
temerè
reperies
thou
shalt
not
easilie
finde
,
he
translates
was
not
expresselie
defined
,
speaking
of
the
number
of
the
7.
Sacraments
,
of
which
Cassander
saith
that
a
man
shall
not
easilie
finde
anie
who
haue
constituted
anie
certaine
&
determinate
number
of
Sacraments
before
Peter
Lombard
.
non
temerè
quenquam
reperies
ante
Petrum
Lombardum
qui
certum
aliquem
&
definitum
numerum
sacramentoū
statuerunt
.
Cass
.
p.
951.
To
the
like
purpose
or
rather
to
no
purpose
he
citeth
also
Gregory
de
Valentia
saying
that
it
doth
not
appeere
when
the
communion
in
one
kinde
beganne
,
which
saying
of
Valentia
is
most
true
,
&
his
meaning
is
that
the
custome
of
communicating
so
,
is
so
auncient
that
it
hath
no
knowne
beginning
,
and
consequentlie
it
hath
bene
euer
in
the
Church
of
God
since
the
time
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
and
by
them
practized
.
And
therefore
Valentia
addeth
prefentlie
after
to
that
purpose
,
that
euer
from
the
beginning
of
the
Church
ther
hath
beene
some
vse
of
the
Eucharist
vnder
one
kinde
,
as
he
hath
showed
before
.
Which
wordes
as
makeing
plainelie
against
him
he
was
content
to
omit
.
So
that
this
testimonie
either
proueth
nothing
to
the
knights
purpose
,
or
els
more
then
he
desires
,
as
also
want
of
honest
dealing
in
the
citation
of
it
.
To
omitte
that
when
that
manner
of
communion
first
began
in
the
Church
is
no
article
of
the
Roman
faith
.
The
same
authour
is
also
once
againe
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
for
that
in
the
same
place
he
affirmeth
the
foresaid
manner
of
communion
not
to
haue
bene
generallie
receiued
but
a
little
before
the
councell
of
Constance
,
which
is
no
more
to
the
purpose
then
the
other
allegation
or
scarse
so
much
.
For
this
and
some
other
testimonies
which
he
citeth
page
60.
at
the
most
doe
but
onelie
proue
that
some
of
the
points
of
doctrine
,
or
rather
of
practice
onelie
of
the
Roman
Church
,
were
not
declaredlie
knowen
and
definede
successiuelie
in
all
differences
of
times
since
the
establishment
of
the
Gospell
;
which
the
Romanists
do
not
denie
:
though
they
knowe
it
is
a
point
impertinent
to
the
matter
heere
in
question
,
which
is
not
whether
the
Reformers
can
showe
a
time
when
the
tenets
(
at
he
termes
them
)
of
the
Roman
Church
were
not
certainelie
knowne
or
generallie
receiued
,
but
also
&
cheefely
whether
they
were
erroneous
;
and
then
if
such
they
were
,
when
they
were
first
publikelie
knowen
and
by
what
authenticall
Councell
they
were
condemned
.
Which
points
because
Sir
Humfrey
hath
proued
neither
of
them
,
neither
by
the
testimonies
of
the
authours
he
cites
nor
by
any
other
forceable
proofe
,
he
hath
failed
of
his
purpose
and
promise
,
and
no
way
recouered
the
reputation
in
this
section
which
he
lost
in
the
former
,
but
rather
hath
much
increased
his
discredit
,
and
consequentlie
the
censure
falleth
more
heauilie
vpon
him
then
it
hath
done
before
.
To
the
testimonie
of
Scotus
aboute
transub
.
I
will
answer
in
an
other
place
.
THE
VI.
PERIOD
.
HEere
Sir
Humfrey
from
a
diuine
is
turned
Herold
and
promiseth
the
Romanists
he
will
shew
them
their
Pedegree
in
faith
drawne
downe
from
the
auncient
heretikes
,
and
contrarilie
the
pedegree
of
his
owne
faith
drawne
from
Christ
and
his
Apostles
.
So
that
heere
you
see
the
knight
hath
vndertaken
a
large
peece
of
worke
,
and
how
he
will
be
able
to
performe
it
I
know
not
.
It
is
a
double
taske
and
therefore
I
doubt
he
will
not
go
through
with
it
without
double
dealing
.
And
I
suspect
this
the
more
for
that
he
saith
he
will
proceede
ordine
retro
grado
,
that
is
as
I
conceaue
,
he
will
imitate
the
Crabbe
in
going
backward
,
and
therefore
I
can
expect
no
better
of
him
then
a
crabbed
piece
of
busines
.
He
saith
he
will
performe
his
worke
by
ascending
vpward
,
but
indeed
his
proceeding
is
so
preposterous
that
a
man
can
find
neither
ascent
nor
descent
it
it
.
For
he
begins
which
lattine
seruice
,
as
he
calleth
it
and
prayer
in
a
straunge
tongue
,
the
beginning
of
which
he
attributeth
to
Pope
Vitalian
about
the
yeere
666.
And
ends
with
the
restraint
of
mariage
of
Priests
which
he
affirmed
in
the
60.
page
,
in
his
former
section
not
to
haue
bene
altogether
established
till
the
time
of
Gregory
the
seuenth
;
and
so
according
to
this
he
doth
not
ascend
but
descend
,
and
yet
more
then
this
,
in
the
middle
of
his
section
he
treateth
of
transubstantiation
as
first
decreed
in
the
Councell
of
Lateran
about
foure
hundreth
yeeres
agoe
,
and
thus
you
see
one
cannot
conceiue
that
he
eyther
ascendeth
or
descendeth
directlie
,
but
rather
that
he
skippeth
vp
and
downe
like
a
mad
man
without
anie
order
at
all
;
but
now
I
will
cease
to
seeke
order
were
none
is
to
be
sound
,
and
come
to
the
examine
of
the
particular
passages
of
his
pedegree
.
He
endeauoureth
to
proue
the
Roman
faith
to
descend
from
auncient
heretikes
,
first
because
they
teach
prayer
in
an
vnknowne
language
not
to
be
vnlawfull
,
(
as
saith
hee
)
Epiphanius
affirmeth
of
the
heretikes
Osseni
in
the
first
age
.
But
to
this
I
answer
that
S.
Epiphanius
is
heere
abused
by
the
Knight
,
for
he
censureth
not
those
people
of
heresie
because
they
held
prayer
not
to
be
vnlawfull
in
an
vnknowen
language
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
falselie
and
ignorantlie
affirmeth
,
but
for
other
errours
of
theirs
which
the
same
Epipha
:
relates
and
confutes
in
his
19.
heresie
.
Neither
doth
he
onelie
affirme
the
Osseni
to
teach
there
was
no
need
to
make
prayer
in
a
knowne
tongue
as
Sir
Humfrey
imposeth
vpon
him
to
the
end
their
errour
might
some
to
agrree
with
the
doctrine
of
the
Roman
Church
in
this
particular
,
Abar
,
Anid
,
Moib
,
Nochile
&c.
adding
that
they
should
not
seek
for
anie
interpretation
of
them
,
which
forme
of
prayer
neuerthelesse
holie
Epiphanius
doth
not
so
much
condemne
for
the
strangenesse
of
the
wordes
,
as
for
the
obscuritie
and
deformitie
of
the
sense
,
as
appeareth
by
his
wordes
here
quoted
in
Latin
.
All
which
is
farre
different
from
the
doctrine
and
practice
of
the
Roman
Church
in
this
point
,
which
neither
in
sense
nor
wordes
vseth
anie
other
prayers
then
such
as
are
conformable
to
that
originall
prayer
which
Christ
him selfe
appointed
his
disciples
to
vse
.
Neither
can
Epiphanius
with
anie
showe
of
probabillitie
be
thought
to
haue
condemned
them
for
heretikes
for
that
which
he
knew
neither
to
be
contrarie
to
Gods
worde
,
nor
anie
definition
of
the
auncient
Church
,
either
before
or
in
his
time
.
And
as
for
that
which
the
Reformers
commonlie
allege
out
of
the
fourth
to
the
Corinthians
and
first
epistle
.
I
say
that
if
the
same
Epiphanius
had
vnderstood
it
as
written
against
such
like
prayers
,
infalliblie
he
would
haue
alledged
the
place
against
those
heretikes
.
But
he
well
knew
that
the
Apostles
meaning
was
not
to
condemne
prayer
in
what
language
soeuer
it
were
,
but
onelie
to
preferre
prophesie
before
straunge
tonges
,
or
at
the
most
to
preferre
prayer
in
a
knowne
tonge
onelie
as
more
edificatiue
,
not
as
absolutelie
necessarie
,
and
the
contrarie
to
be
condemned
as
vnlawfull
or
superstitious
,
as
the
nouelists
will
needes
haue
it
.
And
as
for
precept
of
the
Church
the
same
Epiphanius
in
like
manner
knew
there
was
none
extant
.
True
it
is
,
in
his
time
the
practise
of
the
Greck
Church
was
to
haue
their
prayer
in
Greeke
and
the
Latin
Church
in
Latin
,
but
as
then
neither
all
those
of
the
Latin
Church
did
vnderstand
that
kinde
of
Latin
which
then
was
vsed
in
the
Church
,
so
neither
all
those
of
the
Greeke
which
was
vsed
in
the
publike
seruice
of
the
Grecians
doe
(
excepting
Schollers
)
as
I
haue
beene
truelie
informed
,
by
one
of
that
nation
;
which
practise
as
you
see
,
is
nothing
contrary
to
the
practise
of
the
present
Roman
Church
but
rather
agreable
vnto
it
.
In
regard
that
tho'
the
Latin
Masse
be
not
vnderstood
of
all
the
heares
,
yet
is
Latine
euen
by
the
confession
of
one
of
the
most
learned
Protestants
of
this
age
.
The
common
language
in
the
world
and
vnderstood
by
many
.
And
so
this
citation
is
no
lesse
in
effect
then
a
falsification
of
the
foresaid
Father
;
as
is
likewise
another
which
followeth
out
of
S.
Ambrose
whom
the
knight
produceth
to
the
same
purpose
,
yet
citing
his
wordes
somewhat
corruptedly
,
which
he
rehearseth
in
this
manner
.
There
were
certaine
Iewes
among
the
Grecians
as
namely
the
Corinthians
who
did
celebrate
the
diuine
seruice
and
the
Sacrament
sometimes
in
the
Syriake
,
and
most
commonly
in
the
Hebrew
tongue
which
the
people
vnderstood
not
.
Thus
the
knight
citeth
S.
Ambrose
in
his
Comentary
vpon
the
fourth
chapter
of
the
first
to
the
Corinthians
:
but
his
wordes
which
I
haue
reade
,
in
Latin
are
these
.
Hi
ex
Hebraeis
erant
qui
aliquando
Syra
lingua
,
plerumque
Hebraea
in
tractatibus
aut
oblationibus
vtebantur
ad
commendationem
,
gloriabantur
enim
se
dici
Hebraeos
propter
meritum
Abrahae
.
Thus
S.
Ambrose
,
where
as
you
see
that
vnderstands
Latin
,
there
be
neither
the
words
diuine
seruice
,
nor
the
word
sacrament
to
be
founde
,
but
in
tractatibus
&
oblationibus
,
that
is
as
I
conceiue
in
their
exhortations
and
sacrifices
.
That
which
as
it
seemes
S.
Humfrey
did
deceitfully
translate
otherwise
then
the
wordes
doe
sound
and
signifie
,
least
it
might
appeare
to
his
reader
that
the
Iewes
conuerted
,
euen
in
those
primitiue
times
did
celebrate
sacrifice
as
the
Roman
Church
doth
now
,
and
not
such
a
drye
Rapsodie
as
the
reformers
doe
in
these
our
daies
.
But
that
which
is
most
remarkable
of
all
,
it
is
manifest
out
of
the
same
S.
Ambrose
in
the
same
Coment
,
that
S.
Paul
did
not
condemne
that
practise
of
the
Iewes
as
contrary
to
the
lawe
of
God
,
as
the
sectaries
doe
,
but
onely
that
he
sought
to
bring
them
from
it
as
a
thing
lesse
profitable
in
regard
of
the
Grecians
amonge
whom
they
liued
,
and
that
in
respect
of
their
exhortations
or
instructions
which
the
Corinthians
could
not
vnderstand
in
Hebrew
or
Syriacke
.
That
which
manifestly
appeareth
in
the
verie
same
wordes
of
S.
Ambrose
immediatly
precedent
where
speaking
of
the
sense
and
meaning
of
the
Apostle
in
the
place
vpon
which
he
commenceth
saith
onelie
:
vtilius
est
paucis
verbis
in
apertione
sermonis
loqui
quod
omnes
intelligant
quam
prolixam
orationem
habere
in
obscuro
,
that
is
to
say
:
it
is
more
profitable
to
speake
few
wordes
in
plaine
speach
which
all
may
vnderstand
,
then
to
haue
a
long
oration
or
praier
in
obscurity
.
Besides
this
:
those
last
words
:
which
the
common
people
vnderstood
not
,
are
none
of
S.
Ambroses
,
but
added
by
Sir
Humfrey
and
foisted
in
as
if
they
had
beene
the
reason
yeelded
by
S.
Ambrose
,
why
the
Iewes
did
amisse
in
vsing
their
seruice
in
an
vnknowne
language
,
whereas
yet
he
expressely
saith
they
did
it
for
ostentation
and
commendation
,
so
that
S.
Humfrey
dealeth
heere
deceiptfully
in
diuers
respectes
for
the
aduantage
of
his
false
cause
.
For
iustification
of
the
which
he
vttereth
a
most
impudent
vntruth
in
his
owne
wordes
following
:
affirming
,
that
Sainct
Paule
wrote
that
whole
chapter
of
the
fourteenth
of
the
first
to
the
Corinthians
expressely
against
prayer
or
diuine
seruice
in
an
vnknowne
tongue
,
whereas
in
truth
the
Apostle
expressely
and
directly
laboureth
onely
to
persuade
the
Corinthians
that
it
is
better
to
prophesie
,
that
is
,
to
interpret
Scriptures
,
then
to
exercise
donum
linguarum
,
the
done
or
guift
of
tongues
.
And
altho'
the
Apostle
in
one
place
makes
mention
of
prayer
or
praysing
of
God
in
generall
saying
,
si
benedixeris
lingua
&c.
yet
he
neither
maketh
expresse
mention
of
publike
seruice
in
a
knowne
language
,
nor
giueth
anie
precept
about
it
,
but
onely
preferreth
that
praier
which
he
who
prayeth
vnderstandeth
before
that
which
he
vnderstandeth
not
;
and
that
not
absolutelie
,
but
onelie
with
relation
to
that
time
;
leauing
it
for
future
times
to
the
discretion
of
the
Church
to
be
determined
according
to
the
condition
&
nature
of
the
persons
that
liue
in
it
,
and
other
circumstances
.
Alwaies
supposing
that
although
,
caeteris
paribus
,
some
one
thing
be
better
then
another
euen
ex
natura
rei
,
yet
by
some
notable
change
of
the
time
,
place
,
or
persons
,
that
same
thing
which
once
was
more
profitable
,
may
afterwardes
become
lesse
profitable
,
yea
and
sometimes
quite
vnprofitable
,
or
at
the
least
of
very
small
estimation
,
and
importance
.
And
yet
for
all
this
our
Puritanicall
crue
runne
so
a
madding
with
their
Bible
craste
,
that
they
will
needes
haue
a
precept
where
none
is
,
rather
then
want
their
wils
,
especially
if
it
be
to
Crosse
the
Papists
.
That
which
cannot
appeare
more
plainely
then
in
the
matter
of
which
we
now
treate
,
where
the
knight
for
the
conclusion
of
his
discourse
citeth
Sainct
Paul
his
wordes
in
forme
of
a
precept
,
as
if
he
had
said
pray
with
the
spirit
,
praye
with
the
vnderstanding
also
,
whereas
the
Apostles
wordes
are
onely
these
,
orabo
spiritu
,
orabo
&
mente
,
that
is
I
will
pray
with
my
spirit
,
I
will
pray
with
my
vnderstanding
,
in
which
forme
of
speach
you
see
there
is
no
forme
of
precept
or
commaund
at
all
,
except
one
will
corrupt
the
text
as
he
hath
done
.
The
knight
also
cites
one
Wolfius
as
affirming
that
Pope
Vitalian
first
introduced
Latin
seruice
&
praier
in
an
vnknowne
tonge
.
But
he
might
haue
saued
the
labor
of
citing
that
authour
whom
he
knowes
we
doe
not
admit
as
a
competent
witnesse
in
regarde
we
finde
him
to
be
a
wolfe
indeed
that
is
an
enemie
to
our
religion
,
and
for
such
he
is
noted
in
the
Index
Epurgatorie
.
How
be
it
we
doe
not
denie
but
that
Vitalian
for
the
conseruation
of
vniformity
in
the
publike
seruice
of
the
Church
might
make
a
generall
ordinance
in
that
particular
and
extend
the
practise
of
some
particular
and
most
auncient
Churches
of
the
West
in
which
Latin
seruice
was
euer
vsed
,
to
all
the
rest
of
the
Occidentall
Churches
.
Neuerthelesse
we
denie
that
by
this
action
he
either
did
contrarie
to
Gods
lawe
or
renewe
the
heresie
of
the
Osseni
which
I
haue
shewed
all
readie
out
of
S.
Epiphanius
to
haue
beene
of
a
farre
different
nature
notwithstanding
out
aduersarie
doth
indeuoure
falselie
to
persuade
the
same
to
his
simple
reader
neither
was
this
as
the
knight
vntruelie
affirmes
to
introduce
seruice
in
a
strange
language
,
but
rather
in
the
most
knowne
in
the
world
&
that
in
which
most
nations
agree
:
and
so
this
may
serue
to
demonstrate
that
the
Romanists
deriue
not
this
parte
of
their
Pedagane
from
auncient
heretikes
(
as
our
aduersarie
doth
calumniate
)
but
from
the
practise
of
the
most
auncient
Church
at
the
least
in
the
west
partes
of
the
world
to
wit
the
Apostolicall
Church
.
And
heare
we
see
also
that
Sir
Humfrey
in
steede
of
deriuing
the
Pedegree
of
the
Roman
faith
from
Iewes
and
heretikes
he
deriues
his
owne
from
the
Father
of
lyes
that
is
from
the
abuse
of
both
scriptures
and
auncient
Fathers
of
the
Catholike
Church
.
In
the
next
braunch
of
the
Pedegree
he
plaplaceth
transsubstantiation
,
going
about
to
proue
that
it
was
the
doctrine
or
at
least
the
practise
of
certaine
heretikes
named
Helcesaitae
,
who
faigned
a
two
fould
Christ
as
(
saith
Sir
Humfrey
)
the
Masse
Preists
doe
,
who
admit
one
bodie
with
all
his
dimentions
and
properties
in
heauen
,
and
other
in
the
Sacrament
which
hath
noe
properties
of
a
true
bodie
.
Thus
Sir
Humfrey
talkes
most
absurdely
,
ignorantly
and
falsely
.
Ignorantly
for
that
according
to
this
discourse
he
houldes
the
want
of
locall
dimensions
or
properties
of
a
bodie
sufficient
to
cause
an
absolute
,
indiuiduall
,
&
sustantiall
diuersitie
in
it
,
and
to
distinguish
it
really
from
it selfe
and
so
to
make
it
an
other
distinct
bodie
which
is
so
voyde
of
reason
that
if
he
had
not
bene
grossely
ignorant
in
Philosophie
haue
he
would
neuer
vttered
such
doctrine
vnworthie
of
other
confutation
them
a
schoole
stampe
or
hisse
.
He
speake
also
falsely
first
in
that
he
either
affirmes
or
supposes
Preists
to
admit
that
Christs
bodie
in
the
Sacrament
is
without
anie
properties
of
a
true
bodie
.
For
they
all
contrarily
teach
and
beleeue
that
as
Christs
bodie
in
the
Sacrament
is
the
same
which
is
in
heauen
,
so
hath
it
all
the
same
properties
excepting
locall
extension
.
Secondly
he
speakes
falselie
in
that
he
Fathereth
that
on
Preists
which
none
of
them
either
thought
or
tought
,
and
so
makes
them
guiltie
if
the
Helcesaits
heresie
onelie
for
that
which
he
hath
forged
in
his
owne
phantasticall
braine
.
Also
abusing
the
authority
of
learned
Theodoret
in
misaplying
his
words
in
which
he
vtters
not
anie
iot
or
title
by
which
it
can
be
gathered
that
these
heretikes
meant
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
when
they
faigned
a
double
Christ
;
but
of
two
visible
Christs
,
the
one
aboue
I
knowe
not
where
,
and
the
other
belowe
in
the
world
or
I
knowne
not
where
els
:
adding
that
the
supernall
Christ
did
in
former
times
liue
in
manie
,
but
at
being
descended
from
aboue
.
And
more
,
they
sayde
,
he
passed
into
other
bodies
,
&
other
such
like
fabulous
stuffe
they
haue
of
Christ
which
neuer
enterd
into
the
cogitations
of
any
people
of
learning
and
iudgement
;
and
therefore
it
is
as
great
dotage
in
Sir
Humfrey
to
impose
this
vpon
Catholike
Roman
Preists
as
it
was
in
the
authour
to
inuentit
,
as
will
yet
more
plainely
appeare
by
the
formall
words
of
Theodoret
which
here
I
put
in
the
margin
.
And
the
like
absurditie
Sir
Humfrey
commits
in
that
which
immediatly
followees
,
attributing
the
doctrine
of
transsubstantiation
to
one
Marke
,
an
heretike
,
because
forsooth
he
by
some
kinde
of
inchaunting
inuocation
ouer
the
Sacramentall
cuppe
caused
the
wine
to
appeare
like
bloud
,
which
sacrilegious
example
and
practise
of
Marcus
what
force
it
can
haue
to
proue
the
Romanists
to
be
of
that
fellowes
Pedegree
let
any
indifferent
man
be
iudge
.
And
moreouer
to
take
away
all
doubt
and
assure
himselfe
the
more
,
let
the
reader
but
consider
what
S.
Irenaeus
in
the
same
place
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
videlicet
.
libr.
1.
cap.
9.
saith
of
that
Marcus
,
I
doubt
not
but
he
will
,
see
most
clearely
how
egregiously
our
aduersarie
abuseth
the
Romanists
in
this
matter
.
Marcus
(
saith
S.
Irenaeus
)
pro
calice
vino
mixto
fingens
se
gratias
agere
,
&
in
multum
extendens
sermonem
inuocationis
,
purpureum
&
rubicundum
apparere
facit
vt
putetur
ea
gratia
ab
ijs
qui
sunt
super
omnia
,
suum
sanguinem
stillare
per
inuocationem
eius
,
&
valde
concupiscere
presentes
ex
illo
gustare
poculo
vt
in
illos
stillet
quae
per
magum
hunc
vocatur
gratia
.
By
which
words
let
the
reader
if
he
vnderstand
Latin
iudge
how
voyde
of
grace
is
he
who
so
shamelesselie
applies
this
to
the
Consecration
of
the
Eucharist
by
Preists
of
the
Roman
Church
.
And
yet
the
preposterous
knight
not
being
content
to
haue
spoken
so
irreasonably
,
yet
further
addes
that
the
authours
of
transsubstantiation
were
those
disciples
that
beleaued
the
the
grosse
&
carnall
eating
of
Christs
Flesh.
From
whence
he
would
deduce
that
the
Romanists
descend
from
the
Iudaicall
Capharnaits
in
this
point
.
But
this
is
a
most
grosse
and
ridiculous
conceipt
of
him
to
imagin
that
they
can
be
successours
to
such
as
refused
expressely
and
absolutely
to
beleeue
that
same
which
they
hould
for
a
matter
of
faith
tho'
not
in
the
same
grosse
manner
which
those
incredulous
disciples
of
Christ
did
apprehend
,
and
as
you
also
not
like
reformers
but
deformers
out
of
the
madnesse
of
your
noddles
grossely
conceiue
them
to
doe
:
but
in
a
much
more
spirituall
manner
,
and
yet
,
truely
,
really
and
substantially
,
and
not
onely
in
spirit
as
your
priuate
spirits
would
haue
it
.
Which
,
if
it
were
so
onely
,
it
were
not
the
true
Sacrament
,
which
necessarily
requires
to
containe
really
and
not
by
faith
onely
that
which
it
represents
:
but
it
were
onely
a
meere
shadowe
or
figure
of
a
Sacrament
as
the
sacrifice
of
Melchisedech
,
the
manna
and
bread
of
Proposition
were
signes
and
figures
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
holie
Eucharist
as
not
containing
but
onely
representing
the
body
and
blonde
there
contained
.
And
supposing
that
Sir
Humfrey
himselfe
absolutely
denies
the
reall
presence
of
Christs
body
and
bloud
in
the
Sacrament
,
and
supposing
also
that
as
S.
Iohn
doth
testifie
the
Capharnaits
did
also
refuse
to
beleeue
the
same
,
this
fable
of
Sir
Humfrey
,
mutat
o
nomine
,
may
much
more
aptely
and
truely
be
verified
of
him
and
his
companions
(
I
will
not
say
then
of
the
Romanists
)
but
euen
then
of
the
Capharnaits
themselues
;
in
regarde
the
Capharnaites
,
as
farre
as
can
be
gathered
by
the
text
of
the
sixt
of
S.
Iohn
,
did
according
to
the
interpretation
of
S.
Augustin
but
onely
make
question
of
the
reall
presence
,
or
possibility
of
Christs
giuing
his
bodie
to
be
eaten
not
otherwise
than
in
that
grosse
manner
which
they
then
conceiued
in
their
mindes
,
whereas
yet
the
knight
and
the
rest
of
his
congregation
directly
&
absolutely
affirme
that
Christs
body
and
blood
are
as
farre
from
being
really
contained
in
the
Sacrament
as
heuen
is
from
the
altar
or
Communion
table
.
And
thus
it
appeares
that
by
indeauouring
to
make
vs
Capharnaites
,
Sir
Humfrey
showes
greater
grossenesse
of
conceipte
them
the
grosse
Capharnaites
did
by
denying
the
reall
presence
vpon
the
same
or
like
carnall
imagination
for
for
which
he
and
his
mates
renounce
it
.
From
this
Sir
Humfrey
passes
to
another
parte
of
his
Pedegree
wher
he
putteth
in
the
Popes
supremacie
as
if
it
were
deriued
fundamentally
from
the
Gentils
,
and
to
this
purpose
he
applies
the
wordes
of
our
Sauiour
Lucae
.
22.25
.
so
ridiculously
that
it
makes
me
thinke
he
is
will
read
in
the
booke
of
Quodlibets
or
quaeris
,
he
makes
vse
of
Scripture
so
ingeniously
.
The
wordes
of
our
Sauiour
are
these
.
The
King
of
the
Gentils
exercise
Lordship
ouer
them
,
and
they
that
exercise
authority
vpon
them
are
called
benefactours
.
Out
of
which
place
Sir
Humfrey
will
needes
inferre
and
prooue
that
the
Gentiles
haue
giuen
the
Pope
his
supremacie
and
consequently
that
they
are
the
benefactours
and
founders
of
the
Roman
faith
in
that
particular
.
Which
passage
of
the
Scripture
how
falsely
and
impertinently
it
is
applied
and
how
contrary
to
the
true
sense
those
words
of
our
Sauiour
are
vsed
and
abused
by
the
knight
,
I
will
not
spend
time
in
examination
of
it
,
but
leaue
to
the
iudicious
reader
to
censure
of
it
as
he
pleaseth
:
onely
I
cannot
omitte
to
take
notice
how
he
concludeth
this
his
idle
discourse
with
another
place
of
Scripture
,
out
of
the
20.
of
S.
Math.
where
our
Sauiour
saith
to
his
disciples
,
whosoeuer
will
be
greate
amonght
you
,
let
him
be
your
minister
,
&
whosoeuer
will
be
chiefe
among
you
,
let
him
be
your
seruant
:
by
which
words
it
is
most
apparent
&
agreed
vpon
by
all
interpreters
,
except
the
nouellists
,
that
our
Sauiour
intended
nothing
els
but
to
giue
his
disciples
a
lession
of
humility
,
not
so
that
they
ought
not
in
any
case
to
haue
superiority
and
dominion
in
that
nature
one
ouer
an
other
,
which
were
to
destroy
the
Hierarchy
&
gouernment
of
the
Church
which
he
himselfe
ordained
,
but
that
those
who
were
to
haue
it
should
not
abuse
it
by
dominiering
tirannically
ouer
their
subiects
or
subordinates
.
And
yet
Sir
Humfrey
I
know
not
by
what
rule
of
Alchimie
,
will
needs
extract
out
of
this
place
that
his
and
his
fellowes
doctrine
touching
the
supremacy
is
receaued
from
Christ
himselfe
.
But
in
trueth
with
all
my
Logike
I
cannot
vnderstand
how
he
inferreth
any
thing
hence
for
his
purpose
except
he
will
deduce
ex
quolibet
quodlibet
,
and
make
a
nose
of
way
of
the
holy
Scripture
as
indeed
he
doth
very
frequently
,
framing
such
a
sense
to
the
wordes
as
maketh
for
his
position
,
and
thence
deduceing
arguments
for
proofe
of
the
same
.
And
if
one
were
disposed
to
make
vse
of
Scripture
in
that
manner
,
he
might-aswell
inferre
out
of
this
place
a
kinde
of
supremacie
for
the
ministrie
,
especially
if
we
write
the
word
minister
with
a
greate
M.
as
Sir
Humfrey
doth
.
And
indeede
I
must
confesse
that
your
ministers
are
greate
among
you
in
diuerse
respects
.
For
some
of
them
haue
greate
Bishoprikes
,
others
greate
benefices
,
and
allmost
all
greare
wiues
and
greate
store
of
children
.
And
if
the
King
would
be
pleased
to
suffer
them
,
then
why
might
they
not
come
to
obtaine
the
supremacie
euery
one
is
his
turne
by
succession
,
&
in
that
case
they
might
doubtlesse
make
farre
better
vse
of
the
cited
places
of
Scripture
in
fauour
of
themselues
then
they
doe
in
applying
them
against
the
Romanists
.
And
according
to
his
false
dealing
in
applying
the
Scripture
,
so
doth
he
falsely
affirme
that
the
Popes
supremacy
was
first
graunted
by
Phocas
falsely
applying
the
testimony
of
Vrspergensis
to
that
same
fol.
149.
for
Valentinian
the
Emperour
who
liued
aboue
100.
yeares
before
Phocas
in
his
epist.
to
Theodosius
which
is
extant
in
the
preambles
of
the
Councell
of
Calced
.
sayth
of
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
to
whom
all
antiquity
gaue
the
principalitie
of
preisthood
aboue
all
&c.
And
as
for
Vispergensis
altho'
the
authoritie
of
his
booke
may
iustely
be
suspected
as
hauing
ben
published
by
the
reformers
or
rather
deformers
of
Basill
,
yet
doth
he
not
say
as
Sir
Humfrey
affirmes
that
Phocas
first
granted
the
supremacie
to
the
Bishop
of
Constantinople
,
but
rather
the
quite
contrarie
,
for
thus
he
sayth
.
Post
Gregrorium
Bonifacius
sedit
cuius
rogatu
Phocas
constituit
sedem
Romanae
&
Apostolicae
Ecclesiae
caput
esse
omnium
Ecclesiarum
,
cum
antea
Constantinopolitana
Ecclesia
se
scribebat
primam
omnium
.
After
Gregorie
(
saith
Vrspergensis
)
Bonifacius
did
sit
at
vhose
request
Phocas
constituted
the
seat
of
the
Roman
and
Apostolicall
Church
head
of
all
Churches
:
for
before
the
Church
of
Constantinople
writ
her selfe
first
of
all
Churches
.
So
that
as
the
reader
may
plainely
knowe
,
Sir
H.
hath
falsified
Vrspergensis
relating
that
to
be
said
by
him
of
the
Church
of
Constantinople
which
he
directly
speakes
of
the
Church
of
Rome
:
which
neuerthelesse
is
so
little
to
his
purpose
that
howsoeuer
he
takes
it
,
being
not
a
gift
of
the
Emperour
(
as
not
being
in
his
power
since
that
nemo
dat
quod
non
habet
)
but
onely
a
declaratiue
constitution
,
I
cannot
conceiue
why
our
aduersarie
should
haue
corrupted
this
authour
except
it
were
to
exercise
his
hand
.
Especially
supposing
it
is
a
thing
vnpossible
to
apprehend
how
either
Phocas
or
anie
other
man
or
Angell
could
giue
the
Pope
of
Rome
his
supremacie
(
which
is
that
in
this
passage
he
intendeth
to
proue
)
by
conferring
the
same
(
according
to
our
aduersaries
relation
)
vpon
the
Bishop
of
Constantinople
.
And
so
I
leaue
this
for
one
of
S.
Hūfreyes
vnintelligible
mysteries
of
his
reformed
faith
.
For
worship
of
Images
S.
Humfrey
deduceth
the
Pedegree
of
the
Romanists
from
the
Basilidians
and
Carpocrationes
.
But
his
deduction
is
false
&
for
it
he
falsely
citeth
S.
Ireneus
,
who
saith
indeede
those
fellowes
were
heretikes
for
worshipping
of
images
but
in
another
kinde
farre
different
from
the
honour
which
the
Romanists
vse
towards
pictures
.
In
the
next
passage
which
is
aboute
the
Communion
in
both
kinds
Pope
Leo
tells
vs
,
saith
the
Knight
,
that
the
Manicheis
a
sorte
of
heretikes
in
his
time
vsed
the
Sacrament
in
one
kinde
videlicet
in
bread
onely
.
Lastlie
the
knight
concludeth
this
point
with
those
wordes
of
S.
Luke
,
drinke
you
all
of
this
,
whereby
he
would
proue
that
the
communion
in
both
kindes
came
from
Christ
,
and
so
it
did
indeede
,
but
not
by
precept
giuen
to
all
in
generall
,
but
onelie
to
those
then
present
and
to
those
whome
they
represented
as
to
be
their
successours
that
is
the
Apostles
,
and
all
Priests
after
them
but
not
to
anie
Puritan
or
Puritannicall
minister
as
not
hauing
from
them
anie
true
succession
.
After
these
passages
Sir
Humfrey
proceeds
to
inuocation
of
Saints
and
Aungels
,
the
founders
of
which
he
affirmeth
to
haue
bene
the
heretikes
called
Angelici
,
and
for
this
citeth
Saint
Augustine
ad
quod
vult
Deum
.
But
this
is
idle
for
the
Angelicalls
were
heretikes
not
for
the
inuocation
of
Angells
,
but
either
for
that
they
held
them
to
haue
bene
creatours
of
the
world
,
or
in
regard
they
vsed
to
boast
of
their
owne
Angelicall
manner
of
life
,
or
because
as
Saint
Augustin
testifieth
they
were
so
addicted
to
adore
Angels
,
For
workes
of
merit
and
supererogation
hee
produceth
for
authours
the
heretikes
named
Cathari
and
Puritans
,
but
the
heresies
of
these
sectaries
were
farre
different
from
the
doctrine
of
the
Romanists
touching
these
two
points
.
Nay
they
were
neuer
defenders
of
either
merit
or
workes
of
supererogation
that
euer
I
read
,
but
that
for
which
they
were
condemned
by
the
Catholike
Church
was
chiefelie
for
their
defence
of
the
errours
of
Nouatus
and
particularelie
for
denying
remission
of
sinnes
and
the
authoririe
of
the
keyes
in
the
Church
,
and
for
that
they
affirmed
their
owne
pretended
puritie
to
be
aboue
the
doctrine
of
the
Apostles
as
not
conteyned
in
it
but
farre
exceeding
it
,
and
therefore
they
were
called
Cathari
that
is
pure
ones
.
Cathari
qui
seipsos
isto
nomine
propter
munditiam
superbissime
atque
odiosissime
nominant
:
Secundas
nuptias
non
admittunt
,
paenitentiam
denegant
▪
Nouatum
sectantes
haereticum
,
vnde
etiam
nouatiani
appellantur
.
S.
Aug.
haeres
.
38.
And
S.
Isidor
in
the
verie
place
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
saith
of
them
.
That
they
named
them selfes
Cathari
for
their
puritie
for
glorying
saith
hee
in
their
merits
they
denie
pennance
&c.
And
so
it
appeares
by
this
that
the
knight
belyes
Saint
Isidor
in
two
respects
.
Because
he
quotes
him
lib.
8.
cap.
de
Haeres
.
Christian
:
as
if
he
did
testifie
that
these
heretikes
were
the
first
authours
of
doctrine
of
merit
,
and
workes
of
supererogation
.
Whereas
S.
Isidor
hath
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
.
Nor
yet
makes
anie
mention
in
that
place
of
workes
of
superogation
.
And
so
according
to
this
lette
our
Puritans
of
England
,
and
Sir
Humfrey
him selfe
as
none
of
the
least
of
them
,
examen
their
consciences
well
,
and
doubtles
they
will
finde
themselues
to
haue
farre
more
affinitie
with
the
foresaid
fellowes
then
the
Romanists
,
who
both
gra●nt
remission
of
sinnes
by
vertue
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
keyes
and
allso
denie
and
renounce
all
such
puritie
of
Spirit
as
the
Puritans
pretended
.
He
addeth
for
conclusion
the
worship
of
the
blessed
Virgin
Marie
to
haue
bene
the
heresie
of
the
Collyridians
,
S.
Epiphanius
heresie
46.
whome
neuerthelesse
I
haue
diligentlie
read
but
cannot
finde
it
.
Yet
I
finde
in
Saint
Augustin
who
both
followed
S.
Epiphanius
much
in
his
descriptions
of
heresies
,
and
also
was
better
acquainted
then
anie
writer
of
his
tyme
with
the
errours
of
the
Maniches
,
that
they
did
not
onelie
prohibit
matrimonie
in
Preists
,
but
that
they
absolutelie
detested
the
same
,
for
so
he
saith
of
those
sectaries
.
Verum
si
ad
virginitatem
sic
adhortamini
quemodum
hortatur
Apostolica
doctrina
:
But
if
(
saith
he
)
you
so
exhorte
to
virginitie
as
the
Apostolicall
doctrine
donth
exhorte
:
he
who
giueth
in
mariage
doth
well
,
he
who
doth
not
giue
in
mariage
doth
better
so
that
you
should
say
that
mariage
is
good
,
but
virginitie
better
,
as
that
Church
doth
which
is
truelie
the
Church
of
Crist
,
the
holie
spirit
would
not
thus
prenuntiate
you
saying
:
prohibiting
to
marie
,
for
he
doth
prohibit
who
saith
this
is
euill
,
not
he
who
doth
preferre
before
this
good
thing
an
other
thing
better
then
it
.
Finallie
you
doe
cheeflie
deteste
that
carnall
coniunction
which
onelie
is
honest
and
matrimoniall
,
and
which
the
matrimoniall
writings
also
declare
to
be
for
procreation
of
children
,
whence
it
is
that
you
doe
not
so
much
prohibit
carnall
copulation
as
you
prohibit
mariage
.
And
presentlie
after
the
same
S.
Augustin
addeth
.
Neither
therefore
can
you
say
that
you
doe
not
prohibit
to
marie
.
Because
manie
of
your
auditours
being
not
willing
or
refusing
to
obey
in
this
,
you
tolerate
them
for
frendship
sake
,
for
you
haue
that
in
your
doctrine
of
your
errour
,
this
in
necessitie
of
societie
.
By
which
wordes
of
this
most
famous
doctour
we
may
plainelie
gather
that
suppose
S.
Epiphanius
had
those
wordes
:
in
sacerdotibus
:
yet
he
did
not
meane
of
Preists
onelie
when
he
spoake
of
the
Manichean
heresie
,
but
of
a
direct
and
absolute
prohibition
of
mariage
as
vnlawfull
and
detestable
in
all
sortes
of
persons
:
and
consequentlie
this
passage
of
Sir
Humfrey
drawne
out
of
the
wordes
of
S.
Epiphanius
containeth
no
kinde
of
disproofe
of
Roman
Catholike
doctrine
in
this
particular
,
but
a
faule
imposture
of
his
owne
,
if
he
can
not
produce
out
of
this
authour
the
wordes
which
he
citeth
.
And
whereas
he
affirmes
that
the
Maniches
were
our
predecessours
&
prohibited
mariage
in
Preists
quoting
S.
Epiphanius
in
the
margent
,
Doubtlesse
you
will
tell
me
that
euen
yet
in
certaine
places
Preists
,
Deacons
and
Subdeacons
gette
children
.
But
this
is
not
according
to
the
Canon
but
according
to
the
myndes
of
men
&c.
And
with
these
and
other
errours
which
he
affirmeth
to
be
taught
in
the
Roman
Church
but
doth
not
specifie
,
he
endeth
his
Pedegree
of
the
Romanists
,
which
though
he
houlds
it
to
haue
descended
either
from
auncient
heretikes
,
or
at
the
least
to
haue
,
as
he
saith
,
neere
affinitie
with
their
adultered
issue
,
neuerthelesse
presentlie
after
hauing
better
examined
his
conscience
and
considered
more
deliberatelie
of
the
matter
,
he
seemes
to
loose
some
of
his
former
confidence
,
and
so
addeth
that
if
he
hath
fayled
in
calculating
the
right
natiuitie
of
their
auncient
doctrine
,
yet
sure
I
am
,
saith
hee
,
they
are
vtterlie
destitute
of
a
right
succession
in
persons
and
doctrine
from
the
Apostles
and
the
auncient
orthodox
fathers
of
the
primatiue
Church
,
so
the
knight
,
by
which
discourse
you
may
easilie
perceiue
euen
by
his
owne
wordes
,
and
the
if
which
he
maketh
that
all
which
he
hath
hitherto
said
hath
no
greater
warrant
then
his
owne
suretie
,
which
although
his
authoritie
and
credit
were
farre
greater
then
either
we
haue
found
it
to
be
,
or
it
can
be
in
it selfe
,
yet
were
it
not
safe
for
anie
man
to
relie
vpon
it
,
but
rather
to
hould
it
for
verie
vncertaine
and
fayleable
.
Especiallie
considering
that
all
which
he
hath
produced
in
proofe
of
the
same
are
either
meere
trifles
,
or
at
the
most
verie
poore
arguments
grounded
vpon
false
suppositions
yea
and
vpon
plaine
vntrueths
,
falsifications
,
and
corruptions
both
of
scripture
and
fathers
,
and
so
partlie
through
ignorance
and
partlie
through
malice
he
hath
shewed
himselfe
a
most
partiall
and
false
Herold
.
And
now
altho'
this
might
suffice
for
the
censure
of
the
section
insuing
because
it
pertaineth
to
the
same
subiect
,
yet
least
the
knigth
should
grumble
I
will
a
forde
it
a
Period
a
parte
.
THE
VII
.
PERIOD
.
IN
his
eight
section
therefore
,
Sir
Humfrey
promiseth
to
produce
testimonies
of
his
aduersaries
touching
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
the
Protestant
faith
in
generall
.
So
he
proceedeth
in
the
title
.
To
which
he
addeth
by
way
of
asseueration
that
if
the
Roman
Church
doth
not
confesse
that
the
reformers
are
both
in
the
more
certaine
and
Safer
waye
in
the
Protestant
Church
,
I
will
,
saith
he
,
neither
refuse
the
name
nor
the
punishment
due
to
heresie
.
Heere
we
see
the
knight
is
as
free
in
his
promises
as
euer
he
was
,
let
vs
therefore
examen
how
he
performeth
them
,
for
if
he
doth
not
,
he
cannot
escape
either
the
name
of
an
heretike
,
or
at
the
least
,
the
desert
of
punishment
itselfe
euen
in
this
mortall
life
.
Hee
beginneth
thus
.
He
that
shall
question
vs
where
our
Church
was
before
Luther
,
let
him
looke
back
to
the
Primatiue
Church
:
nay
let
him
but
looke
into
the
bosome
of
the
present
Roman
Church
and
he
shall
finde
that
if
euer
antiquitie
and
vniuersallitie
were
markes
of
the
true
Church
,
of
right
and
necessitie
they
must
belong
to
ours
.
So
Sir
Humfrey
.
In
which
wordes
as
it
were
by
way
of
generall
assertion
he
briefelie
declareth
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
his
Church
to
be
found
both
in
the
Primatiue
Church
and
also
in
the
present
Roman
Church
,
in
which
assertion
there
being
two
partes
and
that
no
small
ones
,
the
first
he
endeauoureth
to
proue
by
shewing
a
conformitie
betwene
the
doctrine
of
the
Church
of
England
with
that
of
the
Primatiue
Church
,
and
descending
to
particulars
he
tells
vs
that
his
Church
teacheth
and
beleeueth
the
same
three
Creedes
which
were
instituted
by
the
Apostles
and
the
Fathers
of
the
Primatiue
Church
,
and
not
created
by
Luther
:
as
also
two
of
the
seauen
Sacraments
which
were
,
saith
he
,
by
the
confession
of
our
aduersaries
instituted
by
Christ
.
The
same
he
affirmeth
of
22.
bookes
of
Canonicall
Scripture
which
he
saith
were
vniuersallie
receiued
in
all
ages
.
Likewise
of
the
seuen
generall
Councells
he
affirmeth
that
foure
of
them
were
ratified
by
the
Cannons
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
confirmed
by
act
of
parliament
,
and
thus
he
runneth
through
the
points
of
doctrine
and
faith
in
which
they
and
we
agree
,
adding
to
them
the
confession
of
his
aduersaries
.
And
yet
in
all
his
large
rehearsall
of
points
of
faith
,
he
maketh
no
mention
of
eyther
those
in
which
the
Romanists
and
reformers
disagree
,
nor
of
those
new
articles
of
the
English
Creede
which
dissent
from
the
doctrine
of
the
Primatiue
Church
,
and
which
indeede
are
those
that
make
the
reformers
guiltie
of
heresie
,
as
its
the
doctrine
of
Iustification
by
faith
onelie
,
the
deniall
of
the
reall
presence
and
such
like
:
But
craftilie
leauing
them
out
as
if
they
were
not
to
the
purpose
he
treateth
,
whereas
in
trueth
by
reason
of
these
new
errours
obstinatelie
defended
by
them
,
there
can
be
no
vniuersalitie
nor
antiquitie
in
their
Church
notwithstanding
they
had
neuer
so
great
conformitie
both
to
the
auncient
primatiue
,
and
moderne
Roman
Church
in
all
the
rest
of
their
beleefe
.
Especiallie
supposing
that
anie
one
errour
in
matter
of
faith
obstinatelie
defended
is
sufficient
to
take
away
all
true
antiquitie
and
vniuersallitie
of
anie
Church
or
congregation
whatsoeuer
,
as
euen
the
reformers
themselues
,
as
I
suppose
,
cannot
denie
,
for
that
,
as
the
scripture
affirmeth
,
that
he
who
offends
in
one
thing
is
made
guiltie
of
all
the
rest
,
so
he
that
in
one
onelie
poynt
of
faith
houldeth
contrarie
to
the
most
vniuersall
and
auncient
Church
,
maketh
himselfe
presentlie
guiltie
of
want
or
defect
both
of
vniuersalitie
and
antiquitie
in
his
beleefe
.
For
as
Saint
Nazianzene
saith
to
this
purpose
in
his
37.
oration
towards
the
end
:
the
articles
of
faith
are
like
to
a
gould
chaine
from
which
if
you
take
away
anie
one
link
(
as
Saint
Ambrose
saith
)
you
take
away
your
saluation
,
vnum
horum
,
saith
he
,
si
detraxeris
tetraxisti
salutem
tuam
.
And
so
we
see
that
the
knight
by
reason
he
omitteth
in
his
discourse
that
part
vpon
which
the
verie
medium
of
his
argument
chiefelie
,
or
at
the
least
greatelie
depended
,
his
proofe
of
antiquitie
and
vniuersality
in
his
Church
falleth
to
the
ground
.
But
besides
this
defect
he
fayleth
also
in
that
he
saith
he
beleeueth
the
three
Creedes
instituted
by
the
Apostles
and
Primatiue
Fathers
of
the
Church
.
For
either
he
meanes
that
those
three
Creedes
do
sufficientlie
conteyne
all
that
he
is
bound
to
beleeue
or
no.
If
the
first
he
meaneth
,
then
what
will
become
of
his
solifidian
iustification
,
and
of
the
39.
articles
of
the
English
faith
,
the
greater
parte
of
which
is
not
to
be
found
in
those
Creedes
.
If
he
meanes
the
second
,
then
doth
he
ill
in
leauing
those
particulars
out
in
the
rehearsall
of
his
faith
.
Nay
more
then
this
,
for
if
matters
were
well
examined
,
I
doubt
not
but
the
knight
notwithstanding
the
protestation
of
his
faith
of
the
three
Creeds
,
yet
he
would
be
founde
holting
in
the
true
&
generally
receiued
,
or
Catholike
sense
of
diuers
of
the
same
,
as
that
of
the
perpetuall
virginity
of
the
mother
of
God
,
in
that
of
the
descent
of
Christ
in
to
hell
,
of
the
Catholike
Church
,
the
communion
of
Saincts
,
remission
of
sinnes
,
and
the
like
I
say
of
the
doctrine
of
the
4.
first
Generall
Councels
,
and
of
the
Sacraments
:
in
which
particulars
our
aduersaries
vnderpresēce
of
reformation
maintaine
diuers
deformed
errours
,
specified
and
confuted
by
diuines
of
the
Roman
Church
.
Moreouer
the
knight
is
also
defectiue
in
the
proofe
of
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
his
faith
,
and
doth
egregiously
equiuocate
in
that
he
saith
that
two
of
the
Sacraments
which
the
Church
of
Rome
houldeth
,
are
professed
by
the
reformers
and
confessed
by
their
aduersaries
to
haue
beene
instituted
by
Christ
,
not
broached
by
Luther
.
This
I
say
is
equiuocall
and
doth
not
prooue
his
intent
:
for
although
it
neither
is
nor
can
be
denied
,
but
ingenuously
confessed
by
the
Roman
Church
that
there
are
two
Sacraments
,
yet
doth
she
not
confesse
that
there
are
onely
two
Sacraments
instituted
by
Christ
as
the
reformers
professe
,
but
houldeth
and
beleeueth
fiue
more
as
well
as
those
two
to
haue
beene
instituted
by
Christ
,
which
fiue
being
denyed
,
or
at
the
least
three
or
foure
of
them
,
both
by
Luther
and
the
rest
of
the
pretended
reformers
,
and
on
the
contrary
hauing
beene
receiued
for
Sacraments
in
auncient
times
,
as
afterwards
shall
be
declared
,
the
deniers
of
them
whosoeuer
they
be
,
cannot
rightly
claime
either
antiquity
of
vniuersality
of
doctrine
in
that
particular
.
And
the
same
may
be
said
for
the
same
reason
of
the
22.
bookes
of
Scripture
,
and
the
seuen
first
generall
Councells
,
in
the
which
he
faith
of
the
reformers
is
neither
auncient
nor
vniuersall
first
for
that
they
hould
those
twenty
two
bookes
for
canonicall
Scripture
&
exclude
all
the
rest
out
of
the
canon
,
which
neuerthelesse
as
appeareth
by
the
testimony
of
S.
Augustin
herecited
in
the
margen
,
And
now
touching
Apostolicall
traditions
Sir
Humfrey
doth
no
lesse
plainely
Sophisticate
then
in
the
former
points
,
for
that
it
is
well
knowne
that
the
reformers
either
hould
no
traditions
at
all
to
be
beleeued
but
rely
wholy
vpon
pure
or
sole
Scripture
as
the
totall
rule
of
their
faith
:
or
if
they
hould
any
traditions
to
be
necessary
yet
do
not
they
hould
all
those
which
the
auncient
&
now
the
moderne
Roman
Church
doth
hould
,
and
consequently
their
manner
of
houlding
Apostolicall
traditions
is
in
words
onely
,
and
hath
no
true
discent
from
the
Apostles
nor
any
vniuersality
or
antiquity
at
all
,
as
neither
hath
their
booke
of
common
prayer
&
manner
of
ordination
and
vocation
of
Ministers
or
Pastours
:
and
so
altho'
they
haue
some
parte
both
of
the
auncient
liturgie
and
also
of
the
Apostolicall
manner
of
ordination
,
yet
because
they
doe
not
wholy
agree
with
them
,
no
not
in
the
substance
and
essentiall
parts
of
the
action
,
that
is
to
say
not
in
the
consecration
of
the
Eucharist
,
nor
in
the
essentiall
forme
and
matter
of
order
which
are
the
wordes
and
imposition
of
hands
,
they
are
defectiue
in
the
antiquity
and
vniuersality
of
the
same
in
regard
that
the
manner
and
forme
of
prayer
and
administrations
of
Sacraments
which
the
reformed
Churches
vse
at
this
present
is
different
from
that
of
the
auncient
Church
,
&
neuer
knowne
nor
heard
of
in
former
ages
but
broach
by
Luther
and
his
sectatours
,
quite
contrary
to
that
which
the
knight
affirmeth
and
indeauoureth
to
prooue
,
as
by
comparing
their
Church
seruice
,
their
booke
of
common
prayer
,
and
of
ordination
of
Ministers
with
the
auncient
liturgies
,
as
that
of
Sainct
Iames
,
Sainct
Basil
,
Sainct
Chrisostome
and
others
,
doth
clearely
appeare
:
as
also
by
confronting
the
same
with
the
writings
of
the
auncient
Fathers
and
their
formes
of
administration
of
Sacraments
,
by
which
we
shall
finde
a
maine
difference
betwixt
the
one
and
the
other
in
regard
that
in
those
auncient
monuments
of
antiquitie
,
be
founde
sacrifice
,
oblation
,
altar
,
incense
,
hoste
,
chalis
,
holy
oyle
,
Chrysme
and
the
like
:
But
in
the
forme
of
seruice
and
administration
of
Sacraments
vsed
now
in
the
pretensiue
reformed
Churches
,
ther
is
none
of
this
to
be
found
or
hearde
.
By
which
it
may
farther
appeare
that
it
is
no
silly
or
senseles
question
,
as
our
aduersarie
would
haue
it
,
to
demaunde
of
the
reformers
where
their
Church
was
before
Luther
.
Because
it
hath
nowe
beene
made
manifest
that
allthough
some
parte
of
their
doctrine
that
I
meane
in
which
they
and
the
Romanists
agree
,
hath
both
vniuersality
and
antiquity
if
it
be
considered
in
it selfe
,
yet
diuerse
other
points
of
it
hath
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
.
That
which
cannot
be
found
in
the
doctrine
of
the
Roman
Church
for
that
allthough
it
is
true
that
some
parte
thereof
was
not
expressely
definde
as
matter
of
faith
before
the
tyme
of
the
later
Councells
,
and
sectaries
,
who
by
their
defection
from
the
euer
succeeding
Roman
Church
,
and
their
new
errours
,
gaue
occasion
of
new
declarations
of
some
particular
points
,
yet
were
those
neither
new
in
them selues
nor
first
broached
&
taught
by
the
foresaid
councells
,
but
onely
they
by
their
authority
determined
&
established
for
certaine
doctrine
that
which
diuerse
nouellists
presumptuously
brought
in
question
,
the
same
neuerthelesse
in
all
the
ages
before
Luther
hauing
bene
both
aunciently
and
vniuersally
tought
,
or
at
the
least
by
many
doctours
of
the
Church
with
out
contradiction
of
the
rest
:
or
perhaps
if
anie
were
of
a
different
opinion
,
it
was
because
matters
were
not
then
so
plainely
declared
by
the
Church
,
and
vnder
her
correction
.
And
so
the
question
proposed
by
the
Romanists
to
the
reformers
can
neither
be
rightly
detorted
vpon
them
,
as
the
knight
vainely
auerreth
,
nor
yet
can
the
reformers
euer
be
able
to
answer
it
,
as
plainely
appeareth
both
by
that
with
hath
beene
allready
said
,
as
allso
by
the
doctrine
of
their
39.
articles
diuerse
of
which
are
not
onely
new
in
themselues
and
neuer
heard
of
in
auncient
tymes
,
but
allso
expressely
broached
by
Luther
himselfe
,
and
that
not
only
in
negatiue
but
allso
in
some
positiue
doctrine
,
as
is
euident
particularly
in
the
point
of
iustisication
by
faith
alone
.
And
hence
allso
it
is
manifestly
inferred
how
vntruely
the
knight
affirmeth
in
his
77.
page
that
noe
Romanist
can
deny
but
that
the
doctrine
of
the
reformers
lay
inuolued
in
the
bosome
of
the
Roman
Church
as
corne
couered
with
chaffe
or
gould
with
drosse
:
for
neither
is
it
true
that
either
all
the
doctrine
of
the
reformers
hath
beene
in
the
Church
before
Luther
,
as
I
haue
showed
,
nor
yet
that
any
Romanist
euer
affirmed
the
same
,
&
so
S.
Humfrey
deliuereth
two
falsities
vnder
one
forme
of
speech
continuing
the
same
for
the
space
of
a
whole
leafe
grounding
his
discourse
vpon
false
suppositions
,
&
equiuocations
,
&
promising
to
produce
testimonies
of
his
aduersarie
the
Romanists
for
the
antiquity
and
vniuersalitie
of
the
protestant
faith
(
he
meanes
the
Puritan
faith
)
in
generall
,
yet
produceth
not
one
for
the
same
excepting
Pope
Adrian
the
6.
and
Costerus
and
D.
Harding
in
Iewell
none
of
which
three
authours
proue
S.
Humfrey
intent
.
Costerus
and
Harding
onely
speaking
of
one
or
two
particular
points
&
that
in
no
matter
of
faith
,
to
wit
aboute
the
manner
of
the
introduction
of
communion
vnder
one
kinde
and
priuate
Masse
into
the
Church
,
as
their
owne
wordes
declare
.
And
as
for
Pope
Adrian
,
his
owne
wordes
truely
and
compleatly
cyted
showe
him
to
speake
onely
of
the
conditionall
adoration
of
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
in
case
the
hoste
should
not
be
consecrated
,
and
so
he
is
here
produced
by
the
knight
both
most
falsely
and
most
ridiculously
to
proue
,
for
sooth
,
that
the
Romanists
excuse
their
absolute
adoration
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
by
that
conditionall
,
I
adore
theif
thou
be
Christ
:
which
manner
of
adoration
neuerthelesse
they
neuer
vse
but
onely
in
speciall
cases
of
doubt
whether
the
Preist
performed
his
office
according
to
Christ●
institution
.
The
Popes
words
are
these
in
Latin
.
Concilium
Constantiense
excusat
simplices
adorantes
hostiam
non
consecratam
quia
facite
implicatur
condition
,
si
consecration
sit
recte
facta
&c.
And
now
let
the
reader
iudge
how
conueniently
they
be
applyed
to
S.
Hūfreys
purpose
of
prouing
absolutely
that
the
Romanists
excuse
their
adoration
of
Christ
in
that
manner
.
Further
more
Sir
Humfrey
doth
not
adduce
any
reason
at
all
for
the
proofe
of
his
antiquitie
and
vniuersality
,
but
onely
vseth
his
owne
conceiptes
consisting
mearely
in
iffes
an
andes
,
or
conditionall
asseuerations
,
&
thus
quite
throu'
the
rest
of
his
section
he
rides
poste
like
a
man
that
caries
newes
of
a
false
victorie
now
and
then
dropping
a
lye
by
the
way
for
the
haste
he
maketh
to
come
to
the
end
of
his
iourney
,
which
is
nothing
els
but
his
owne
discredit
:
which
because
it
hath
beene
already
sufficiently
manifested
I
neede
not
goe
to
particulars
for
more
proofe
of
the
same
,
especially
for
that
I
know
I
shall
haue
occasion
hereafter
to
handle
more
largely
all
those
seuerall
points
which
our
aduersary
congesteth
in
this
place
rather
by
way
of
recrimination
then
of
treaty
,
as
that
Costerus
&
Harding
excuse
the
communion
and
priuate
Masse
,
the
one
by
saying
that
the
cup
was
not
taken
away
by
the
commaundement
of
the
Bishops
,
but
that
it
crept
in
the
Bishops
conniuing
ther
at
,
which
he
attributeth
to
Costerus
:
the
other
,
that
it
is
throu
the
negligence
of
the
lay
people
that
they
communicate
not
at
euerie
Masse
,
which
he
ascribes
to
D.
Harding
.
All
which
is
imposed
by
the
knight
vpon
those
two
Catholike
authours
contrarie
to
their
true
sense
and
meaning
,
for
that
as
it
is
apparent
by
their
owne
wordes
which
I
will
rehearse
in
an
other
place
,
they
say
not
those
things
by
way
of
excuse
in
regarde
they
know
ther
is
no
need
of
excuse
wher
no
faulte
is
founde
nor
acknowledged
:
it
being
certaine
to
them
and
all
other
Romanists
that
how
soeuer
priuate
Masse
,
and
single
communion
were
at
first
introduced
,
yet
they
are
both
lawfully
practized
.
And
so
I
conclude
this
section
of
his
,
inroling
il
with
the
former
censures
:
or
rather
I
may
with
greate
reason
frame
a
more
rigorous
censure
for
it
,
in
regard
that
the
knight
hauing
promised
more
then
before
,
yet
he
hath
performed
lesse
,
and
hauing
vnder
the
name
and
punishment
due
to
heresie
vndertaken
to
showe
by
the
testimonies
&
confession
of
his
aduersaries
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
his
faith
,
&
that
his
way
euen
by
the
confession
of
the
Romanists
is
more
certaine
then
their
owne
,
yet
he
hath
performed
nothing
but
spent
his
whole
discourse
in
equiuocations
and
iuggeling
tricks
,
and
so
he
cannot
possible
escape
the
same
sentence
which
his
owne
execration
called
vpon
him
.
THE
VIII
.
PERIOD
.
THIS
Period
shall
conteine
the
ninth
section
of
S.
Hūfreys
booke
:
with
though
by
reason
of
the
largenes
of
it
,
he
diuideth
it
in
to
seuerall
paragraffes
,
yet
because
they
haue
but
small
substance
in
them
as
he
handleth
them
,
though
otherwise
they
be
in
themselues
matters
of
importance
:
as
alsoe
for
that
his
doctrine
in
te
same
points
hath
beene
already
in
parte
examined
&
confuted
,
therefore
I
will
not
stand
to
make
so
many
seuerall
distinctions
in
the
treaty
of
them
as
he
doth
,
but
reduce
them
all
to
one
onely
period
,
briefely
examining
how
farre
those
testimonies
of
Romanists
which
he
promiseth
to
produce
as
witnesses
of
the
antiquity
of
his
owne
doctrine
,
and
the
nouelty
of
theirs
,
doe
reach
in
the
particular
points
of
the
same
.
He
beginneth
therefore
with
iustification
by
faith
onely
,
will
make
it
appeare
that
before
and
after
the
conquest
,
the
priests
and
professours
of
those
tymes
protested
openly
against
the
doctrine
of
Romish
merits
preaching
saluation
by
Christ
alone
,
and
with
all
publikely
professed
and
administred
the
same
sacraments
in
the
same
faith
and
truth
which
we
teach
and
administer
to
this
day
.
Thus
he
proceedeth
by
way
of
assertion
with
a
promise
to
make
it
appeare
,
which
assertion
neuerthelesse
contayning
two
partes
,
yet
neither
of
them
is
true
,
but
both
either
false
or
equiuocall
,
or
rather
partely
false
,
and
partely
equiuocall
.
The
first
parte
is
cleerely
false
in
of
it
affirmeth
that
the
priests
and
professours
both
before
and
after
the
conquest
protested
openly
against
Romish
merits
.
That
this
is
false
it
is
manifestly
conuinced
first
because
all
the
workes
of
learned
men
,
and
histories
both
of
England
and
other
contries
that
write
of
that
matter
,
doe
testifye
that
from
the
tyme
of
S.
Gregories
mission
of
S.
Augustin
into
England
to
preach
and
establish
the
Roman
faith
(
to
omit
more
auncient
times
)
both
the
Kings
,
priests
,
and
people
as
well
before
as
since
the
conquest
haue
continually
professed
the
same
Roman
doctrine
which
then
they
receiued
,
vntill
the
time
of
Henry
the
eight
at
the
least
,
and
among
the
rest
the
very
same
doctrine
of
merits
which
now
the
Church
of
Rome
defendeth
.
As
is
diligently
proued
by
the
authour
of
the
protestants
apollogie
in
the
first
section
of
his
first
treaty
the
63.
page
euen
by
the
testimonies
of
Protestants
themselues
.
And
what
S.
Gregories
owne
doctrine
was
in
this
particular
,
he
himselfe
testifieth
in
his
booke
of
moralls
the
42.
chap.
saying
that
because
in
this
life
there
is
diuersitie
of
workes
among
vs
therefore
with
out
doubt
there
will
be
in
that
diuersitie
of
dignities
,
to
the
end
that
as
heare
one
doth
surpasse
another
in
merit
,
so
there
one
may
transcend
another
in
the
retribution
.
Thus
Sainct
Gregorie
to
whose
testimonie
as
I
could
,
if
neede
were
,
ioyne
the
expresse
authorities
of
Fathers
of
precedent
ages
for
witnesses
of
the
doctrine
of
merits
,
as
of
S.
Augustin
,
Hierome
,
Ambrose
,
Hilarie
,
Cyp.
Tertull.
and
other
Grecian
Doctours
euen
till
the
time
of
the
priuatiue
Church
:
so
may
the
consent
of
those
who
succeeded
the
the
same
S.
Gregory
be
added
for
the
confirmation
of
it
S.
Bernard
:
to
omit
other
places
alledged
by
me
in
an
other
occasion
:
in
his
8.
serm.
vpon
the
Cantic
.
saith
.
Omne
quod
feceris
bonum
malumne
,
quod
quidem
non
facere
liberum
sit
,
meritò
ad
meritum
deputatur
.
Concilio
Aran.
can
.
18.
debetur
merces
bonis
operibus
si
fiant
,
sed
gratia
quae
non
debetur
praecedit
vt
fiant
.
To
which
might
be
added
the
Councels
of
Lateran
sub
Inno.
3.
cap.
firmiter
,
the
florent
.
decreto
de
Purgatorio
,
and
the
late
Councell
of
Trent
.
Which
all
teach
the
same
doctrine
of
merits
as
our
aduersaries
cannot
denie
,
to
which
also
might
be
ioyned
all
those
are
testimonies
of
auncient
Fathers
who
teach
that
faith
onely
doth
not
iustifie
,
nor
is
sufficient
to
saluation
,
by
all
which
its
manifestly
conuinced
that
the
doctrine
of
iustification
could
not
be
openly
protested
against
both
before
and
after
the
Conquest
by
the
Preists
and
professours
of
England
,
except
Sir
Humfrey
will
persuade
vs
that
the
faith
of
England
in
those
times
was
different
from
the
faith
of
all
the
world
beside
,
and
euen
of
those
who
directly
sent
preachers
for
the
conuersion
of
it
from
gentilisme
and
superstition
,
all
which
being
wholely
incredible
,
so
by
necessary
consequence
is
the
whole
discourse
grounded
thereupon
.
Secondly
I
answer
that
its
manifest
out
of
the
words
cited
by
the
knight
out
of
the
booke
of
the
forme
of
administration
of
Sacraments
vsed
in
those
times
(
supposing
the
booke
is
authenticall
,
which
neuerthelesse
may
be
suspected
as
being
being
onely
produced
by
Cassander
a
suspected
authour
)
there
is
not
any
word
,
sentence
,
or
sillable
which
excludes
from
saluation
those
merits
which
the
Roman
Church
defendeth
:
but
onely
such
merits
as
either
exclude
,
pressely
exclude
the
merits
of
the
passion
of
Christ
and
therefore
the
question
which
according
to
the
order
of
that
directory
the
Priest
maketh
to
the
sick
person
runneth
in
this
tennour
.
Doest
thou
belieue
to
come
to
glorie
not
by
thine
owne
merits
,
but
by
the
virtue
and
merits
of
the
Passion
of
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
?
which
interrogation
as
you
see
manifestly
containeth
an
opposition
betwene
the
merits
of
the
infirme
man
and
those
of
Christ
,
and
for
that
cause
he
calleth
them
his
owne
as
being
wholy
wrought
by
his
owne
naturall
power
without
the
concourse
of
the
merits
of
our
Sauiour
&
consequently
in
that
sense
of
no
force
or
vertue
for
the
obtaining
of
saluation
.
That
which
is
yet
more
manifest
by
the
like
question
insuing
made
also
by
the
Preist
to
the
same
person
in
this
manner
.
Doest
thou
belieue
that
our
Sauiour
Iesus
Christ
did
die
for
our
saluation
?
And
that
none
can
be
saued
by
his
owne
merits
or
by
any
other
meanes
but
by
the
merits
of
his
passion
?
where
you
see
the
opposition
still
runneth
,
and
especially
heare
more
clearely
,
betwixt
mans
owne
merits
or
other
meanes
which
proceed
not
from
Christs
Passion
,
but
from
some
other
cause
,
not
including
or
depending
vpon
them
as
the
principall
agent
of
all
meritorious
operations
.
And
verily
I
am
persuaded
that
the
reason
why
in
those
daies
&
in
those
occasions
the
formes
and
speach
where
somewhat
different
in
the
matter
of
merit
,
from
the
formes
vsed
in
our
times
,
is
no
thing
els
but
the
differences
of
errours
reigning
in
the
worlde
in
those
times
,
and
those
that
are
now
at
this
present
defended
by
the
nouellists
.
For
the
Pelagian
heresie
which
did
attribute
ouer
much
virtue
to
the
merits
of
man
hauing
once
beene
and
perhaps
some
requikes
of
it
yet
remaining
verie
rife
in
England
when
the
foresaid
directory
was
vsed
(
if
any
such
there
were
)
or
at
the
least
not
longe
before
,
it
was
necessary
that
in
all
occasions
humane
merits
should
be
as
much
extenuated
as
could
possible
be
without
preiudice
of
faith
in
that
point
.
But
contrarilie
in
these
our
daies
since
the
publication
of
the
errours
of
Luther
and
other
sectaries
in
this
matters
,
it
was
conuenient
,
if
not
necessary
,
to
extoll
the
same
merits
as
much
as
could
be
without
preiudice
to
the
merits
of
Christ
.
Now
touching
that
which
is
added
in
the
second
parte
of
the
knigts
assertion
videlicet
,
that
the
Preists
of
former
times
preached
saluation
through
Christ
alone
,
it
is
most
plainely
equiuocall
,
and
in
one
sense
it
is
true
and
conformable
to
the
doctrine
of
the
Roman
Church
in
all
ages
,
but
in
another
sense
it
is
false
and
disagreable
to
the
same
,
it
is
true
that
Christ
alone
is
the
authour
of
saluation
and
that
no
other
then
he
can
saue
vs
according
to
that
of
the
Apostle
Sainct
Peter
Act.
4.
non
est
in
alio
aliquo
salus
.
Nec
enim
aliud
nomen
est
sub
Caelo
datum
hominibus
in
quo
oporteat
nos
saluos
fieri
.
Neither
is
there
any
other
name
vnder
heauen
giuen
to
men
wherein
we
must
be
saued
:
and
in
this
sense
and
no
otherwise
the
Preists
of
England
in
more
auncient
times
preached
saluation
by
Christ
alone
:
yet
notwithstanding
all
this
,
it
is
false
that
those
Preists
preached
saluation
with
an
exclusion
or
deniall
of
the
merits
of
man
wrought
by
the
grace
of
Christ
and
by
virtue
of
his
death
and
Passion
,
neither
was
such
doctrine
euer
taught
either
in
England
or
any
other
place
before
the
time
of
Luther
,
except
it
were
by
some
more
auncient
heretikes
.
Moreouer
that
which
the
knight
putteth
in
the
second
parte
of
his
foresaid
assertion
,
to
wit
that
the
Preists
of
those
times
published
and
administred
the
same
Sacraments
in
the
same
faith
and
trueth
,
which
they
(
meaning
the
reformers
)
teach
&
administer
this
day
,
this
I
say
is
partelie
equiuocall
in
that
he
saith
they
publike
professed
&
administred
the
same
Sacraments
.
For
tho'
it
were
true
that
two
of
the
Sacraments
which
those
Preists
administred
videlicet
.
Baptisme
&
the
Eucharist
,
be
the
same
which
there
formers
administer
at
this
day
,
yet
it
is
false
that
the
foresaid
Priests
did
the
vse
in
their
time
either
to
professe
or
administer
two
onelie
,
as
may
appeare
by
the
same
rituall
out
of
which
S.
Humfrey
draweth
this
testimonie
,
in
which
all
the
seauen
Sacraments
are
contained
and
appointed
to
be
administred
,
if
the
booke
be
perfectly
published
without
corruption
.
Partelie
also
that
same
parte
of
the
assertion
is
false
,
for
that
it
is
manifest
the
foresaid
Preists
did
not
receiue
those
two
which
the
reformers
hould
for
Sacraments
in
the
same
faith
which
they
doe
,
for
as
much
as
the
Priests
mentioned
receiued
those
two
in
the
faith
of
fiue
other
Sacraments
which
also
they
beleiue
to
be
such
as
well
as
the
rest
,
supposing
that
the
number
of
all
the
seuen
Sacraments
were
then
in
beleefe
and
practice
as
much
as
now
they
bee
,
as
both
the
rituall
cited
,
if
it
be
not
corrupted
,
and
also
the
histories
of
those
times
can
testifie
,
of
which
fiue
Sacraments
neuerthelesse
the
reformers
haue
no
such
faith
as
they
themselues
confesse
.
To
say
nothing
of
the
faith
of
those
same
Preists
in
other
points
of
religion
,
which
as
it
is
certaine
by
the
relation
of
historiographes
,
was
farre
different
from
the
faith
of
the
reformers
and
practice
of
their
Churches
,
and
consequentlie
it
cannot
with
truth
be
said
to
be
the
same
.
And
as
for
the
rest
of
the
words
which
the
knight
citeth
out
of
the
same
rituall
,
they
proue
nothing
against
merit
it selfe
but
onelie
against
confidence
in
proper
merits
as
appeares
by
those
wordes
in
particular
,
place
thy
whole
confidence
in
his
death
onelie
,
haue
confidence
in
no
other
thing
,
that
which
is
so
farre
from
the
deniall
of
merits
as
that
it
is
counselled
&
aduised
euen
by
those
who
are
most
professed
defendours
of
the
Roman
doctrine
in
that
point
as
out
of
Bellarmine
and
other
diuines
we
haue
showed
before
.
I
offer
his
merits
(
that
is
the
merits
of
Christ
)
in
steede
of
the
merits
I
ought
to
haue
,
for
if
he
ought
to
haue
merits
as
he
affirmeth
euen
vpon
his
death
bed
,
though
he
haue
them
not
,
euident
it
is
that
he
denied
not
the
same
but
plainelie
supposed
the
truth
of
them
.
And
thus
we
see
that
the
words
of
the
order
of
baptizing
benigniouslie
interpreted
make
nothing
for
S.
Hūfreyes
position
nor
against
the
Roman
doctrine
of
merits
,
How
be
it
the
same
was
iustelie
corrected
by
the
Inquisitors
both
because
the
manner
of
phrase
which
it
vseth
might
easily
giue
occasion
of
errour
especially
in
these
our
dayes
:
as
also
because
it
is
iustelie
suspected
to
be
Apochryphall
,
in
regarde
it
containes
certaine
ill
sounding
sentences
not
onely
in
the
doctrine
of
the
Roman
Church
:
but
also
according
to
the
tenets
of
the
Reformers
.
As
where
it
saith
thus
.
These
protestations
of
such
as
lye
a
dying
were
reuailed
to
a
certaine
religious
man
.
And
those
wordes
:
he
that
shall
protest
such
things
as
followe
,
from
his
harte
cannot
be
damned
&c.
All
which
propositions
and
some
othgers
are
commaunded
by
the
authours
of
the
Index
to
be
blotted
as
well
as
the
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
here
cites
.
And
yet
more
ouer
it
is
to
be
aduertised
that
there
is
not
a
worde
in
all
that
which
our
aduersarie
produceth
against
merits
which
doth
proue
iustification
by
faith
onelie
,
which
is
that
which
he
intendes
to
proue
in
this
place
as
the
title
of
his
paragraph
doth
declare
.
And
so
by
this
meanes
he
hath
quite
fled
from
his
text
.
And
so
this
may
suffice
to
demonstrate
the
falsitie
of
the
knights
assertion
and
the
nullitie
of
the
proofe
thereof
by
the
testimonies
of
his
aduersaries
,
seeing
plainelie
that
he
doth
no
thing
therein
,
but
partlie
by
vntrueths
and
partlie
by
equiuocations
deludes
his
reader
not
citing
anie
one
authour
either
Romanist
or
reformer
in
all
this
paragraffe
more
then
the
wordes
rehearsed
out
of
the
foresaid
Rituall
,
which
neuerthelesse
hauing
bene
,
as
suspected
of
corruption
,
chasticed
by
the
Inquisitours
,
the
vncensured
coppies
(
which
doubtlesse
he
and
his
fellowes
onelie
vse
)
haue
no
authoritie
nor
credit
in
the
Roman
Church
,
or
at
the
most
,
verie
little
,
and
consequentlie
he
proceedeth
most
weakelie
in
produceing
for
a
testimonie
of
his
aduersarie
that
which
they
doe
not
acknowledge
for
theirs
,
especiallie
considering
he
alledgeth
nothing
els
for
the
proofe
of
his
tenet
.
The
second
paragraffe
is
of
the
Eucharist
and
Transubstantiation
.
As
concerning
the
Sacraments
of
the
Lords
supper
saith
the
knight
.
In
the
dayes
of
Alfrick
about
the
yeare
996.
There
was
a
Homilie
publikelie
to
be
read
to
the
people
one
Easter
day
,
wherein
the
same
doctrine
which
,
saith
hee
,
our
Church
now
professeth
was
publikelie
taught
and
receaued
,
and
the
doctrine
of
the
reall
presence
(
which
in
that
time
had
gotte
some
footing
in
the
Church
)
was
plainelie
confuted
and
reiected
.
The
wordes
which
he
citeth
are
these
.
There
is
a
greate
difference
betwixt
the
bodie
wherein
Christ
suffered
and
the
bodie
which
is
receaued
of
the
faithfull
,
the
bodie
that
Christ
suffered
in
it
was
borne
of
the
flesh
of
marie
with
bloud
and
with
bone
,
with
skinne
and
with
sinewes
,
in
human
lims
,
with
a
reasonable
soule
liuing
:
and
his
spirituall
bodie
which
nourisheth
the
faithfull
spirituallie
,
is
gathered
of
manie
cornes
without
bloud
and
bone
,
without
lim
,
without
soule
,
and
therefore
there
is
nothing
to
be
vnderstood
bodilie
but
spirituallie
&c.
Thus
farre
out
of
the
homilie
.
And
this
doctrine
faith
the
knight
was
deliuered
in
those
times
not
by
one
onely
Bishop
but
by
diuerse
in
their
Synods
and
by
them
commended
to
the
Clergie
,
who
were
commaunded
to
reade
it
publikelie
to
the
people
one
Easter
day
for
their
better
preparation
and
instruction
in
the
Sacrament
,
and
for
the
same
cause
translated
into
the
saxon
language
by
Alfrick
:
and
to
the
same
purpose
the
Knight
also
citeth
two
other
writinges
or
Epistles
as
published
and
translated
also
into
the
vulgar
tongue
by
the
same
Alfric
.
But
to
this
I
answer
first
that
whatsoeuer
doctrine
is
conteynd
in
the
Hom.
&
Epistles
cited
,
the
Romanists
are
not
bound
to
beleeue
it
,
because
the
knight
onely
citeth
them
out
of
his
owne
authours
and
as
printed
by
the
members
of
his
owne
Church
,
to
wit
out
of
B.
Vsher
,
and
Doctour
Iames
,
and
so
it
is
both
absurd
and
impertinent
to
produce
them
as
testimonies
of
his
aduersaries
,
as
he
professeth
to
doe
in
the
title
of
his
section
,
especially
supposing
that
he
hath
not
aledged
any
one
author
of
the
Romanists
religion
where
by
to
proue
them
authenticall
,
nor
yet
any
other
indifferent
witnesse
,
but
onely
those
two
reformers
whom
we
haue
named
,
whoe
by
the
Romanists
may
iustly
be
suspected
of
partiallity
in
fauour
of
their
owne
cause
,
especially
if
we
consider
that
Sir
Humfrey
himselfe
graunteth
that
the
Latin
epistle
written
by
Alfric
is
to
be
seene
mangled
and
razed
in
a
manuscript
in
Benet
colledg
in
Cambridge
.
And
certainely
the
English
coppies
being
found
not
to
aggree
with
the
Latin
manuscript
which
is
either
the
Originall
it selfe
,
or
at
the
least
cometh
much
neerer
the
time
in
which
the
authour
of
it
liued
,
then
any
other
coppie
the
knight
could
possible
haue
,
there
is
farre
greater
euidence
that
the
latter
translations
and
impressions
are
corrupted
by
the
reformers
,
then
that
either
the
Index
expurgatorius
or
any
other
Romanist
hath
made
any
alteration
or
chaunge
in
the
originall
coppies
or
first
authenticall
manuscripts
,
or
in
any
other
except
it
were
onely
to
restore
them
to
their
prime
innocenty
and
originall
trueth
:
cheefely
supposing
that
the
inquisitors
in
their
expurgation
of
bookes
intend
no
other
thing
more
then
to
reduce
such
as
be
corrupted
to
the
former
purity
of
their
originalls
.
Thirdly
I
answer
that
admitte
the
editions
which
are
published
in
England
be
true
and
sincerely
translated
and
printed
,
which
neuerthelesse
may
iustly
be
suspected
by
reason
of
the
manifould
corruptions
found
to
haue
bene
vsed
in
that
nature
by
diuerse
of
the
reformed
profession
as
by
the
expurgatory
Index
doth
plainely
appeare
,
the
authours
of
which
Index
haue
discouered
diuers
workes
Fathered
partely
by
auncient
and
partely
by
moderne
sectaries
vpon
those
who
neuer
writ
them
:
which
was
the
cause
as
I
suppose
,
why
Antonius
posseuinus
in
the
preamble
to
his
select
Bibliotheke
saith
that
Sixtus
,
Bellarmine
,
and
others
haue
manifested
very
maine
pestilent
bookes
attributed
by
heretikes
to
ancient
and
good
authours
among
which
we
may
number
one
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
in
some
parte
of
his
worke
,
intitled
de
fiducia
&
misericordia
Dei
,
which
Bell.
in
his
booke
de
Scrip.
Eccles.
declares
to
be
counterfait
and
suppositious
and
none
of
Bishop
Fishers
on
whom
it
is
imposed
.
Neuerthelesse
how
so
euer
the
matter
standes
touching
the
truth
of
the
foresaid
homilie
,
and
admit
it
be
neuer
soe
true
and
authenticall
:
yet
I
am
confidently
assured
that
the
wordes
by
Sir
Humfrey
cited
out
of
it
against
the
reall
presence
,
are
not
so
obscure
but
that
they
admitte
such
a
comodious
exposition
as
doth
not
in
any
sort
fouour
the
denyall
thereof
but
rather
impugne
and
it
confute
it
.
First
for
that
there
is
not
one
worde
which
includeth
a
denyall
of
the
reall
presence
of
Christs
bodie
in
the
Eucharist
,
but
the
wordes
onelie
showe
a
difference
betwene
the
body
in
which
Christ
suffered
and
the
bodie
which
the
faithfull
receiue
,
which
difference
is
not
reallie
in
the
substance
of
the
bodie
it selfe
,
it
being
one
and
the
same
in
nature
in
euery
place
where
it
existeth
;
but
onely
in
the
properties
and
manner
of
existence
,
or
being
in
place
:
it
hauing
beene
in
the
passion
visible
,
mortall
,
and
with
it
entire
locall
extension
:
but
in
the
Sacrament
inuisible
,
impassible
,
and
vnextended
:
in
which
sense
allso
it
may
rightly
be
called
spirituall
:
yea
and
not
altogether
improperly
,
especially
taking
it
with
a
relation
or
respect
vnto
the
same
body
perfectly
extended
in
the
manner
aboue
declared
,
it
may
be
said
to
be
without
bloud
,
bone
,
sinn
woe
,
limbe
,
or
soule
,
that
is
without
extension
or
motion
of
these
partes
,
as
the
cited
wordes
doe
signifie
,
which
by
reason
of
the
foresaid
maner
of
being
of
Christs
body
in
the
Sacrament
doe
call
it
his
spirituall
bodie
,
from
thence
as
it
were
inferring
&
concluding
that
noething
is
to
be
vnderstood
there
bodily
but
spiritually
:
all
which
is
noething
contrarie
to
the
doctrine
of
the
Romanists
in
this
point
,
but
rather
most
agreeable
to
the
same
,
which
teacheth
that
Christs
body
though
it
be
truelie
in
the
Sacrament
,
yet
without
extension
and
not
in
a
Corporall
,
but
in
a
spirituall
manner
;
yea
and
very
conformable
to
the
doctrine
of
S.
Paul
who
speaking
of
the
resurrection
of
the
flesh
douteth
not
to
call
one
&
the
same
humane
bodie
both
corruptible
&
spirituall
:
it
was
the
same
(
saith
he
)
which
we
offer
,
not
bodily
but
gostely
.
But
which
wordes
it
is
euident
that
Alfric
puts
a
maine
difference
betwixt
that
spirituall
meate
and
drinke
of
the
Iewes
,
&
the
spirituall
foode
which
Catholike
Christians
receiue
in
the
Sacrament
,
that
being
but
a
signification
,
as
the
authour
of
the
Homilie
expressely
affirmeth
,
of
Christs
body
&
bloud
,
it
being
the
same
not
bodilie
but
onely
spiritually
or
figuratiuelie
with
that
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
which
he
auerreth
Preists
to
offer
daylie
and
of
which
he
also
teacheth
the
foresaid
water
to
be
a
representation
,
not
the
bodie
and
bloud
themselues
,
which
as
being
euerie
day
sacrificed
in
the
altar
,
euen
according
to
common
sense
they
must
of
necessitie
be
reallie
and
truelie
in
the
Eucharist
.
And
altho'
the
authour
of
the
Homilie
calleth
if
a
figure
of
Christs
bodie
&
bloud
,
yet
doth
he
not
say
it
is
a
figure
of
them
absent
,
as
the
water
flowing
out
of
the
rock
was
,
but
truelie
and
reallie
present
,
as
those
his
wordes
in
which
he
saith
and
diuers
time
repeateth
,
that
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
are
offered
in
the
same
Eucharist
by
Preists
in
sacrifice
,
doe
euidently
conuince
,
supposing
it
is
impossible
to
conceiue
the
authour
of
the
homilie
should
affirme
that
Christs
bodie
and
bloud
be
offered
,
in
the
altar
,
and
yet
not
beleeue
the
same
to
be
reallie
truelie
and
substantially
present
in
the
Eucharist
.
Moreouer
the
same
Homilie
saith
in
plaine
termes
,
the
wine
which
in
the
supper
by
the
Preist
is
hallowed
,
shewe
one
thing
without
to
humane
vnderstanding
and
another
thing
with
in
to
beleeuing
minds
,
without
they
seeme
bread
and
wine
both
in
figure
and
tast
,
and
they
be
truely
after
their
hallowing
Christs
bodie
and
his
blood
throu'
gostelie
misterie
.
And
afterwardes
these
wordes
doe
followe
,
we
said
vnto
you
that
Christ
hallowed
bread
and
wine
to
housell
before
his
suffering
and
said
this
his
my
bodie
and
my
bloud
,
yet
he
had
not
then
suffered
:
but
so
notwithstanding
he
turned
trou
'
in
visible
might
the
bred
to
his
owne
hodie
,
the
wine
to
his
bloud
,
which
wordes
how
plaine
they
be
for
the
reall
presence
and
transsubstantiation
,
anie
one
that
is
not
violently
partiall
in
his
owne
cause
may
easilie
perceiue
,
considering
that
for
Christ
to
turne
by
inuisible
might
the
bread
and
wine
into
his
bodie
and
bloud
,
is
nothing
els
but
that
which
both
the
definitions
of
the
Roman
Church
and
Catholike
diuines
call
by
the
names
of
reall
presence
and
transsubantiation
.
Thirdlie
it
is
manifest
that
the
foresaid
testimonie
cannot
in
reason
be
alledged
in
fauour
of
the
reformers
doctrine
in
this
particular
,
for
that
they
denie
the
bodie
of
Christ
either
to
exist
or
to
be
receaued
really
in
the
Eucharist
otherwise
then
by
faith
&
figure
,
neither
of
which
neuertelesse
is
denied
by
the
words
aboue
cited
,
but
contrarilie
they
expressely
and
absolutelie
auerre
that
the
bodie
of
Christ
is
receaued
by
the
faithfull
,
and
altho'
they
call
it
his
spirituall
bodie
,
yet
doubtlesse
they
doe
it
onelie
for
the
reason
alledged
as
also
for
that
it
nourisheth
the
receiuers
spirituallie
,
yet
they
neuer
denie
it
to
be
a
true
bodie
,
or
to
be
trulie
present
in
the
Sacrament
,
or
affirme
it
to
be
receiued
by
faith
onelie
as
the
reformers
commonlie
doe
,
and
Sir
Humfrey
in
particular
most
expresselie
in
diuerse
places
of
his
booke
.
Fourtlie
the
wordes
alledged
call
the
bodie
which
the
faithfull
receiue
in
the
Eucharist
a
bodie
gathered
of
many
cornes
,
without
bloud
and
bone
,
without
lim
,
without
soule
.
But
the
reformers
professe
to
receiue
no
such
bodie
in
the
Sacrament
,
but
the
verie
same
bodie
which
sitteth
on
the
right
hand
of
God
in
heauen
indued
with
all
the
properties
and
dimensions
of
a
true
bodie
,
though
by
faith
onelie
;
and
so
there
being
such
small
affinitie
betweene
both
the
words
and
sense
of
the
foresaid
place
and
the
reformers
doctrine
in
this
point
,
neither
S.
Humfrey
,
nor
those
from
whom
he
receiued
it
,
had
any
reason
to
produce
it
as
a
testimonie
wherebie
to
proue
their
Church
to
haue
bene
visiblie
extant
,
and
their
faith
publikelie
professed
before
the
daies
of
Luther
.
And
from
hence
we
may
further
deduce
how
vaine
a
flourish
the
knight
maketh
in
the
end
of
his
97.
page
were
by
way
of
conclusion
he
affirmes
that
the
most
substantiall
points
of
his
religion
were
visiblie
knowne
and
generallie
published
not
in
pryuate
corners
but
in
publike
libraries
,
not
in
obscure
assemblyes
.
But
in
open
Churches
,
and
generall
congregations
of
our
owne
countrye
in
the
darkest
ages
long
before
Luthers
dayes
;
All
which
deduction
is
most
friuolous
and
idle
:
first
for
that
suppose
it
were
most
true
and
certaine
that
the
denyall
of
the
reall
presence
were
contained
in
the
foresaid
writings
,
the
contrarie
to
which
I
haue
made
most
manifest
,
yet
is
it
a
most
vaine
and
false
brag
of
the
knight
to
saye
that
therefore
the
most
substantiall
points
of
his
religion
were
visiblie
knowne
and
generallie
professed
in
his
countrie
longe
before
the
dayes
of
Luther
,
it
being
manifest
that
with
all
the
Arethmatik
he
can
vse
,
To
which
I
answer
that
hauing
exactely
examined
all
the
particulars
which
he
produces
for
proofe
of
this
his
boysterous
affirmation
,
I
finde
that
as
he
chargeth
most
falselie
the
Romanists
of
diuision
in
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
,
so
his
proofe
of
the
same
by
authoritie
of
the
authours
which
he
cytes
,
is
also
most
deceitfull
,
in
regard
he
produces
them
as
if
they
disagreed
in
their
faith
of
the
soresayd
point
,
and
consequentlie
as
if
euen
according
to
their
owne
tenets
,
they
had
neyther
antiquitie
nor
vniuersalitie
in
their
doctrine
,
whereas
in
truth
none
of
the
cited
authours
haue
anie
disagreement
among
themselues
,
but
all
with
one
vnanimous
consent
professedly
acknowledge
the
faith
and
doctrine
of
the
change
of
the
substance
of
bread
and
wine
into
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
,
some
of
them
onelie
differing
aboute
the
manner
of
it
.
Some
houlding
it
to
be
sufficientlie
expressed
in
scripture
,
as
(
vnlesse
it
be
Caietan
whose
meaning
I
will
explicate
in
an
other
place
)
all
scholasticall
diuines
affirme
.
Some
others
(
among
which
scotus
is
one
,
or
rather
scotus
alone
)
being
of
opinion
there
is
no
place
of
scripture
so
expresse
that
without
the
dermination
of
the
Church
it
can
euidentlie
conuince
,
and
constraine
one
to
admitte
transubstantiation
in
the
Sacrament
.
Others
that
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
was
held
euen
in
the
Primatiue
Church
,
tho'
perhaps
the
worde
it selfe
was
not
vsed
in
those
most
auncient
times
but
since
inuented
.
But
not
obstanding
what
they
held
in
these
particulars
,
yet
doe
none
of
them
which
the
knigth
cites
,
impugne
tran̄ssubstātiation
,
or
denie
that
the
bread
and
wine
are
truelie
conuerted
into
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
,
but
they
all
expresselie
auouche
,
and
maintaine
it
,
so
that
a
man
may
maruell
where
Sir
Humfreyes
eyes
were
when
he
read
and
rehearsed
them
.
And
as
for
Cardinall
Aliaco
,
he
doth
not
expresse
his
owne
opinion
in
the
wordes
alledged
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
nor
yet
affirmeth
it
to
haue
beene
defended
by
anie
authour
in
his
time
,
but
saith
onelie
,
tertia
opinio
fuit
,
the
third
opinion
was
.
Putting
his
owne
which
he
calleth
more
common
,
and
more
agreeable
to
the
scripture
and
determination
of
the
Church
,
as
also
to
the
common
opinion
of
the
holie
Fathers
and
doctours
:
onelie
graunting
that
it
doth
not
euidentlie
follow
of
the
scripture
that
the
substance
of
the
bread
doth
not
remaine
after
consecration
together
with
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
or
absolutelie
ceaseth
:
or
,
that
which
I
rather
conceiue
of
his
true
meaning
,
it
can
onelie
be
gathered
out
of
this
authour
(
whome
I
haue
exactelie
read
in
this
passage
)
that
in
times
past
there
were
some
fewe
who
,
before
the
matter
was
plainelie
defined
by
the
Church
defended
that
it
is
possible
,
yea
and
more
conformable
to
naturall
reason
,
and
more
easie
to
be
conceiued
,
nor
were
euidentlie
repugnant
to
scripture
,
that
the
bodie
of
Christ
might
remaine
with
the
substance
of
bread
in
the
Sacrament
:
none
of
which
is
contrarie
to
the
doctrine
of
transsubstanciation
as
it
is
beleeued
actuallie
in
the
Church
,
nor
to
the
vniuersalitie
of
her
faith
therein
,
supposing
that
an
act
may
consist
with
possibilitie
to
the
contrarie
,
of
which
nature
it selfe
yealdes
infinitie
examples
especiallie
in
such
effects
as
depend
vpon
indifferent
or
free
causes
.
But
not
obstanding
this
diuision
of
the
Romanists
which
,
as
the
reader
may
easilie
perceiue
,
being
onelie
in
accidentall
points
of
this
controuersie
betwixt
them
and
the
reformers
,
maketh
nothing
for
Sir
Humfreys
purpose
:
yet
besides
this
the
testimonies
which
the
knight
alledgeth
out
of
the
same
authours
are
so
farre
from
prouing
his
intent
,
that
there
is
not
one
of
them
which
doth
not
either
expresselie
containe
or
at
the
least
suppose
the
trueth
of
the
Roman
doctrine
in
the
chiefe
point
of
the
controuersie
of
transubstantiation
,
two
especiallie
that
is
dutand
in
his
Rationall
,
and
Cameracensis
,
speake
so
plainelie
in
that
particular
of
the
conuersion
of
the
substance
of
the
bred
and
wine
into
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
our
Sauiour
,
that
it
is
to
be
admired
that
one
of
the
contrary
opinion
could
possible
be
either
so
ignoraunt
as
not
to
perceiue
them
to
be
against
him
,
or
so
impudent
that
perceiuing
the
same
,
he
should
venture
to
produce
that
which
he
might
easily
haue
perceiued
it
could
serue
for
nothing
els
but
a
testimonie
of
his
owne
confusion
:
especiallie
considering
with
how
small
sinceritie
he
hath
delt
in
vsing
or
rather
abusing
for
the
aduantage
of
his
cause
,
both
the
wordes
and
sence
of
some
of
the
foresaid
authours
,
as
appeereth
particularlie
in
the
citation
of
Bellarmin
.
page
111.
where
he
affirmeth
him
to
saye
that
it
may
iustlie
be
doubted
whether
the
scriptures
doe
proue
the
bodilie
presence
of
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
.
In
which
he
shamefullie
belyeth
the
Cardinall
,
for
he
sayth
not
those
words
merito
dubitari
potest
cited
and
Englished
by
the
knight
,
of
the
proofe
of
the
reall
presence
out
of
scripture
,
of
which
neither
he
nor
Scotus
(
of
whose
opinion
he
there
treateth
)
makes
anie
doubt
at
all
:
but
he
onelie
saith
that
altho'
to
him
the
scripture
seemes
so
cleare
that
it
may
force
one
that
is
not
obstinate
to
beleeue
transubstantiation
,
yet
merito
dubitari
potest
,
it
may
with
iust
cause
be
doubted
whether
transubstantiation
can
be
proued
so
expressely
by
scriptures
as
they
may
constreine
anie
man
not
refractorie
to
beleeue
it
:
which
are
farre
different
matters
as
anie
one
that
is
not
either
verie
ignorant
or
verie
desirous
to
deceiue
,
may
easilie
vnderstand
.
And
in
the
same
fashion
,
if
not
worse
,
doth
he
abuse
Maldonate
the
Iesuit
affirming
that
he
confesseth
Saint
Augustin
in
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
to
be
wholie
theirs
,
citing
the
foresaid
Maldonat's
words
vpon
the
6.
chapter
of
Saint
Iohn
.
the
5.
verse
.
For
the
same
;
which
although
they
be
truelie
rehearsed
by
the
knight
,
yet
haue
they
no
such
sense
or
meaning
as
he
doth
either
ignorantlie
or
malitiouslie
suppose
,
nor
doth
he
treate
in
them
either
of
the
reall
presence
or
transubstantiation
,
but
onelie
of
the
exposition
of
the
wordes
of
the
foresaid
verse
,
Patres
vestri
manducauerunt
Manna
&
mortui
sunt
,
qui
manducat
hunc
panem
viuet
in
aeternum
.
Making
a
question
whether
in
them
there
be
made
by
Christ
a
comparison
betweene
the
seuerall
persons
that
did
eate
,
or
betwene
the
seuerall
kindes
of
breades
which
they
did
eate
.
And
whereas
Maldonate
citeth
Saint
Augustine
and
others
to
follow
that
opinion
which
houlds
the
comparison
to
be
betwixt
the
eaters
,
he
with
other
authours
who
liued
since
the
tyme
of
S.
Augustin
reiecting
that
as
lesse
probable
&
more
neere
to
the
exposition
of
the
Caluinists
,
leaueth
it
so
,
and
imbraceth
the
contrarie
:
and
in
this
point
onelie
,
and
in
this
manner
doth
Maldonate
persuade
himselfe
that
Saint
Augustin
as
a
most
greate
enimie
to
heretiks
would
haue
bene
of
another
mynde
if
he
had
liued
in
these
our
daies
,
and
seene
his
owne
exposition
of
the
foresaid
wordes
come
so
neere
the
glosse
of
the
Caluinists
.
And
this
being
all
;
yet
our
learned
knight
is
so
curious
an
Alchimist
that
he
will
needes
drawe
out
of
Maldonate
by
arte
,
that
he
confesseth
S.
Augustin
to
haue
bene
wholie
for
the
reformers
in
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
,
and
(
also
that
which
is
further
fetched
)
that
the
Romanists
haue
neither
antiquitie
nor
vniuersalitie
in
their
doctrine
.
But
alas
his
worke
hath
succeeded
so
vnfortunatelie
that
insteede
of
gould
he
hath
extracted
drosse
,
I
meane
that
in
lieu
of
one
single
trueth
he
hath
vttered
a
double
lye
,
falsifying
most
shamefullie
Saint
Augustine
and
maldonate
both
at
once
,
and
with
in
the
space
of
a
verie
few
lines
.
And
the
like
Circulatorie
and
circumuenting
tricks
the
knight
also
vseth
in
the
citations
of
Alfonso
de
Castro
Gregorius
de
Valentia
and
Cardinall
Cusanus
.
As
if
they
did
testifie
that
there
is
no
antiquitie
nor
vniuersallitie
in
the
Fathers
touching
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
,
where
as
in
deede
they
haue
no
such
matter
,
as
appeereth
euen
out
of
the
verie
same
wordes
which
he
citeth
in
this
place
:
Castro
onelie
affirming
that
there
is
seldome
mention
of
the
transubstantiation
of
the
bread
into
the
bodie
of
Christ
in
antiquis
scriptoribus
in
the
auncient
writers
,
not
in
the
auncient
Fathers
as
the
knight
doth
falselie
translate
.
And
that
which
is
yet
much
falser
,
he
translates
conuersion
for
transsubstantiation
;
where
it
is
also
to
be
noted
that
Castro
speakes
there
onelie
of
the
worde
transubstantiation
not
of
the
thing
signified
by
the
worde
,
as
is
euident
by
his
other
wordes
which
presentlie
fellowe
,
saying
thus
.
Who
but
an
heretike
will
dare
to
denie
these
things
because
they
are
not
mentioned
in
auncient
Fathers
vnder
such
names
?
So
that
both
Castros
wordes
,
and
sense
are
grosselie
corrupted
by
Sir
Humfrey
.
Valentia
onelie
affirmeth
that
it
is
not
to
be
marueled
,
if
one
or
two
,
or
some
of
the
auncients
(
not
Fathers
as
our
aduersarie
yet
somat
more
corruptedlie
then
before
traduceth
)
before
the
question
of
transubstantiotion
was
throulie
debated
in
the
Church
,
haue
tought
lesse
consideratelie
,
and
lesse
weigtilie
of
this
matter
.
In
which
wordes
the
knight
also
translates
palam
,
throulie
for
openlie
,
and
leauing
vnmentioned
the
other
ansers
which
Valentia
giues
to
the
testimonies
of
Gelasius
and
Theodoret
vpon
whose
occasion
he
speakes
in
that
manner
,
This
therefore
is
all
that
the
cited
authours
affirme
.
And
to
omitte
that
none
of
them
vseth
the
name
of
Fathers
as
the
knight
would
haue
them
,
translating
and
transforming
the
wordes
scriptotes
,
veteres
,
and
antiqui
Theologi
,
or
the
like
,
into
Fathers
,
or
at
the
least
citing
the
foresaid
authours
as
if
they
spake
planiely
of
the
auncient
fathers
,
which
neuerthelesse
their
wordes
doe
not
showe
,
I
say
,
to
say
nothing
of
this
which
though
it
is
a
trick
to
deceaue
the
reader
,
yet
it
is
so
poore
a
one
as
it
cannot
much
aduantage
his
cause
.
And
to
admitte
that
by
those
formes
of
speech
the
foresaid
moderne
authours
meane
the
auncient
Fathers
:
yet
doth
not
this
argue
want
of
antiquity
or
vniuersallity
of
the
Fathers
in
that
pointe
,
in
regard
it
is
not
required
to
the
argument
of
antiquitie
that
all
auncient
Fathers
in
all
ages
none
excepted
agree
in
the
pointe
for
which
that
kinde
of
argument
is
vsed
,
especiallie
before
the
matter
be
sufficientlie
declared
&
determined
by
the
Church
in
case
of
doubt
or
opposition
of
heretikes
or
otherwise
:
but
onely
it
is
required
and
sufficient
that
the
most
parte
of
them
doe
consent
therein
the
rest
not
obstinatelie
contradicting
the
same
,
or
carrying
themselues
at
least
indifferent
according
to
the
aduise
of
Vincent
lyr
.
Contra
prophanas
haeres
.
nouit
.
saying
that
,
si
in
ipsa
vetusttate
discrepantes
sententias
reperiamus
,
sequamur
sententiam
plurium
&
illustriorum
Doctorum
.
That
is
,
if
in
antiquitie
it selfe
we
finde
.
different
opinions
,
let
vs
followe
the
opinion
of
the
more
famous
Doctours
.
And
this
is
therefore
true
because
that
if
such
methaphisicall
antiquitie
&
vniuersality
were
necessarie
for
all
points
of
faith
,
noe
Church
in
the
world
could
truely
be
said
to
haue
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
in
all
points
of
doctrine
or
to
haue
beene
alwaies
Catholikes
,
it
being
a
thing
manifest
that
not
any
Church
either
is
,
nor
was
,
nor
euer
will
be
so
auncient
and
vniuersall
as
that
ail
and
euery
one
of
the
auncient
Fathers
agree
euer
actually
with
her
in
euery
point
,
as
it
is
most
cleare
in
the
auncient
Father
Sainct
Cyprian
and
yet
more
cleere
in
Tertullian
and
origen
,
who
by
reason
of
some
points
of
doctrine
which
either
were
not
in
their
time
sufficiently
and
expresselie
determined
by
the
Church
,
or
of
which
they
had
,
not
occasion
to
treate
may
seeme
in
some
sorte
to
dissent
from
the
present
Church
euen
in
such
doctrine
as
now
is
knowne
,
and
beleeued
for
matter
of
faith
euen
by
the
nouelists
themselues
,
as
appeares
in
the
point
of
rebaptization
defended
by
S.
Cyprian
&
his
adherents
in
those
times
.
Which
if
it
were
not
so
,
its
euident
,
that
the
reformers
were
yet
in
farre
worse
case
then
either
the
Romanists
should
be
vpon
that
supposition
,
or
then
now
they
are
,
if
in
worse
they
can
be
imagined
to
be
,
whoe
neither
haue
,
nor
euer
can
haue
any
kinde
of
vniuersalitie
or
antiquity
of
Fathers
either
metaphisicall
or
morall
on
their
side
.
And
now
this
being
all
in
substance
,
are
rather
more
then
those
three
cited
authours
affirme
,
it
hence
appeereth
how
smale
reason
Sir
Hum.
had
to
cite
them
in
his
fauour
,
especiallie
considering
that
one
of
them
that
is
Alfonsus
a
Castro
,
doth
onely
say
that
there
is
seldome
mention
made
of
transubstantiation
in
the
Fathers
,
not
denying
as
it
is
manifest
,
their
agreement
in
that
point
,
but
rather
insinuating
their
consent
therein
tho'
not
so
frequentlie
expressed
.
Furthermore
the
knigth
addeth
for
the
conclusion
of
this
pointe
that
many
writers
,
and
schoole
men
in
their
owne
Church
are
so
farre
from
graunt
of
antiquity
&
vniuersalitie
to
this
doctrine
,
that
they
professe
the
tenet
of
transubstantiation
was
latelie
receaued
in
the
Church
for
a
point
of
faith
.
And
for
this
he
citeth
Scotus
as
affirming
that
before
the
councell
of
Lateran
transubstantiation
was
not
beleeued
as
a
point
of
faith
and
that
the
doctrine
of
it
is
not
verie
auncient
in
the
Church
.
Thus
Sir
Humfrey
.
Tho
which
I
answer
that
all
tho'
Bellarmin
affirmes
that
Scotus
sayde
transubstantiation
was
not
an
article
of
faith
before
the
councell
of
Lateran
yet
I
finde
he
speakes
not
so
absolutely
,
but
at
the
most
he
saith
it
was
not
solemnly
declared
as
an
article
of
faith
before
that
Councell
,
not
denying
but
that
it
minght
be
also
declared
in
other
particular
councels
as
in
deed
it
was
declared
by
the
Roman
councell
vnder
Nicolas
the
second
,
aboue
a
hundreth
&
fifty
yeeres
before
,
and
more
expressely
in
another
Roman
councell
vnder
Gregorie
the
seuenth
:
yea
and
maintained
in
the
Church
time
out
of
minde
.
Neuerthelesse
by
way
of
argument
I
am
content
to
graunt
to
the
aduersaries
that
which
Bellarmin
affirmes
of
Scotus
:
The
same
Durand
is
alsoe
abused
by
the
knight
in
regarde
he
produces
him
to
proue
that
the
Roman
diuines
are
diuided
in
their
opinions
touching
transsubstantiation
,
which
neuerthelesse
I
haue
showed
by
his
owne
words
how
plainelie
he
maintaines
it
.
And
that
which
Bellarmin
is
here
cited
to
affirme
of
him
lib.
3.
de
Euch.
cap.
13.
is
not
that
his
opinion
is
hereticall
touching
the
maine
point
of
transsubstantiation
,
but
onely
because
by
a
singular
opinion
he
houldes
that
onely
the
forme
of
bread
and
wine
,
and
not
the
matter
is
conuerted
in
to
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
which
altho'
it
be
false
,
yet
doth
not
the
author
therfore
make
anie
doubt
of
transsubstantiation
it selfe
and
so
this
is
an
other
of
Sir
Hūfreyes
trickes
by
which
he
cousens
his
reader
and
iniureth
both
these
diuines
at
once
.
But
put
the
case
Durand
were
truely
cyted
,
yet
I
say
as
I
said
before
,
that
a
small
number
of
writers
against
the
whole
torrent
of
the
rest
cannot
hinder
the
antiquitie
or
vniuersalitie
,
either
of
the
doctrine
of
transsubstantiation
,
or
any
other
point
of
faith
.
And
if
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
Fathers
were
to
be
taken
in
that
rigour
which
Sir
Humfrey
will
haue
it
,
it
is
manifest
that
he
and
his
consortes
may
cast
their
cappes
at
it
for
any
such
they
should
euer
be
able
to
finde
in
their
reformed
congregations
,
it
being
now
euident
out
of
the
examen
and
censure
of
the
former
sections
,
that
to
speake
within
compasse
,
they
haue
not
(
I
doe
not
say
the
tenth
parte
in
number
of
the
auncient
Fathers
for
the
proose
of
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
their
whole
Creede
,
which
the
Romanists
haue
for
theirs
)
but
not
so
much
as
one
onely
authour
before
Luther
,
which
truely
cited
and
vnderstood
doth
defend
their
doctrine
in
all
and
euery
particular
pointe
.
And
according
to
this
,
I
answer
also
to
the
testimonie
of
B.
Tunstall
whom
the
kinght
citeth
as
houlding
the
point
of
transubstantiation
to
haue
bene
a
matter
of
indifferencie
and
not
an
article
of
faith
within
lesse
then
fiue
hundreth
yeeres
.
To
which
I
replye
first
that
Sir
Humfrey
dealeth
heere
according
to
his
accustomed
manner
that
is
insyncerelie
,
first
because
he
produceth
this
authours
testimonie
as
if
he
had
bene
of
opinion
that
perhaps
it
had
bene
better
to
haue
left
the
doctrine
of
Transubstantiation
vndetermined
and
free
for
euery
one
to
vse
his
owne
coniecture
,
as
in
his
Phansie
it
was
before
the
Councell
of
Lateran
;
which
is
most
false
for
that
the
Bishop
doth
onely
relate
that
as
an
opinion
of
some
others
which
yet
he
nameth
not
,
his
resolution
being
in
that
pointe
farre
different
as
his
booke
testifieth
in
that
same
place
.
Secondly
he
dealeth
insincerely
in
that
he
taketh
hould
of
that
onely
which
maketh
for
his
purpose
in
some
sort
but
,
leaueth
out
not
onely
that
which
maketh
expressely
against
him
and
for
the
reall
presence
(
quaefuit
saith
Tunstall
ab
initio
Ecclesiae
fides
,
which
was
the
faith
of
the
Church
from
the
beginning
)
but
also
he
leaueth
out
the
very
resolution
it selfe
of
the
authour
in
this
same
pointe
of
transubstantiation
,
where
after
the
wordes
by
the
knight
cited
,
he
saith
expressely
he
houldeth
it
iust
for
that
the
Church
is
a
pillar
of
trueth
,
that
her
iudgment
is
to
be
obserued
as
throughly
firme
.
Adding
further
that
those
who
contend
that
,
that
manner
of
transubstantiation
ought
to
be
reiected
(
meaning
that
same
which
the
Roman
Church
both
then
taught
and
now
teacheth
)
because
the
worde
is
not
found
in
scripture
,
nimis
praefracti
iudicij
sese
esse
ostendunt
.
Quasi
vero
saith
hee
Christus
eo
modo
illud
quod
vult
efficere
non
posset
,
cuius
omnipotentiae
&
spiritus
S.
operationi
in
totum
detrahere
sua
assertione
videntur
.
By
which
plaine
wordes
of
this
learned
Bishop
the
reader
may
plainely
see
how
deceiptfullie
he
is
dealt
with
and
how
much
he
is
abused
by
the
knight
.
Secondly
I
answer
that
how
indifferent
soeuer
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
might
seeme
to
our
aduersarie
to
haue
beene
before
the
Councell
of
Latran
,
neuertelesse
both
this
authour
and
all
others
truely
Catholikes
both
since
and
before
that
councell
,
haold
it
not
for
a
matter
indifferent
,
but
for
a
certaine
trueth
and
verity
as
appeareth
planely
by
that
which
hath
beene
said
allready
in
the
declaration
and
answer
to
those
testimonies
which
haue
in
this
paragraffe
beene
produced
for
the
contrary
.
Lastly
I
answer
that
there
was
neuer
such
indifferency
in
the
Roman
Church
concerning
the
foresaid
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
,
but
that
so
manie
authours
in
all
ages
folowed
the
affirmatiue
,
that
the
reformed
flock
shall
neuer
be
able
to
show
anie
for
the
negatiue
,
no
not
one
classicall
authour
.
He
makes
vse
also
of
the
testimonies
of
the
other
.
Durand
in
the
fourth
of
his
Rationale
chap.
41.
of
Odo
in
Can.
d.
4.
And
Christopher
de
cap.
fontium
lib.
de
correct
.
Theol.
Scholast
.
cap.
11.
&
alib
.
who
seeme
to
say
that
Christ
did
not
consecrate
with
those
wordes
,
this
is
my
bodie
:
but
by
his
benediction
.
But
to
these
authours
I
say
first
that
whatsoeuer
they
held
in
this
particular
,
they
all
agree
in
that
point
which
is
here
in
controuersie
betwixt
Sir
Humfrey
and
the
Romanists
,
that
is
they
all
accorde
and
teach
the
reall
presence
and
transubstantiation
,
and
so
they
are
all
impertinentlie
alledged
.
Secondlie
I
say
,
that
these
authours
dispute
in
the
places
cited
,
onelie
by
what
wordes
,
or
action
Christ
himselfe
did
consecrate
,
and
not
of
the
wordes
of
Consecration
by
which
the
Preists
vse
to
consecrate
:
And
altho'
they
propose
a
question
of
this
also
,
yet
they
agree
in
that
the
Preists
doe
consecrate
by
no
other
wordes
but
those
.
This
is
my
bodie
.
That
which
in
durand
,
at
the
least
,
is
most
plainelie
expressed
when
in
his
page
166.
he
saith
.
Cum
ad
prolationem
verborum
istorum
,
hoc
est
corpus
meum
:
hic
est
sanguis
meus
sacerdos
conficiat
de
consecrat
.
d.
11.
credibile
iudicatur
,
quod
&
Christus
eadem
verba
dicendo
confecit
.
By
which
wordes
it
is
most
apparent
that
durand
made
no
doubt
of
the
determinate
wordes
by
which
Preists
doe
consecrate
,
nor
yet
was
of
opinion
that
Christ
himselfe
did
vse
anie
other
,
how
be
it
he
relates
an
opinion
of
some
others
which
thinke
that
Christ
did
not
consecrate
with
those
same
wordes
,
but
he
saith
in
the
opinion
rather
of
others
then
himselfe
)
that
virtute
diuina
nobis
occulta
confecit
,
that
he
did
it
by
diuine
virtue
or
power
himselfe
,
and
afterwardes
expressed
the
forme
sub
qua
posteri
benedicunt
,
by
which
the
succeeding
Preists
doe
blesse
or
consecrate
.
Now
Sir
Humfrey
in
his
citation
of
this
authour
lefe
out
the
latter
parte
of
his
text
which
doth
plainelie
declaire
his
minde
to
wit
the
wordes
,
scilicet
hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
which
durand
includes
in
the
benediction
or
consecration
of
Christ
,
chimericallie
ioyning
to
some
of
the
authours
former
wordes
,
others
which
belonge
to
another
opinion
related
by
durand
,
which
houldes
that
Christ
repeated
the
wordes
twise
first
to
giue
them
power
and
vertue
of
confection
or
consecration
,
and
afterwardes
to
teach
the
Apostles
the
forme
of
consecration
,
by
which
the
reader
may
easily
perceiue
that
the
knight
insteed
of
making
durand
his
owne
,
he
both
lost
him
&
his
owne
reputation
by
either
most
ignorant
or
malitious
peruerting
of
that
Catholike
authours
wordes
,
and
sense
.
The
like
to
which
proceeding
he
vseth
also
in
the
testimonie
of
Odo
whome
he
cites
to
proue
that
Christs
bodie
is
made
in
the
Sacrament
by
his
benediction
,
and
not
by
the
wordes
:
this
is
my
bodie
.
For
he
neither
sincerelie
relates
,
nor
trulie
construes
them
.
And
first
whereas
that
authour
by
may
of
exposition
of
that
worde
,
benedixit
,
saith
benedixit
,
corpus
suum
fecit
,
meaning
that
Christ
blessed
the
bread
,
that
is
to
say
made
it
is
bodie
,
Sir
Humfrey
doth
English
the
wordes
both
with
a
false
interpretation
of
them
and
a
false
separation
so
:
and
then
made
that
his
bodie
,
adding
the
worde
then
of
his
owne
stampe
.
Secondlie
he
makes
a
false
construction
of
Odos
wordes
in
that
whereas
Odo
vnderstands
by
benediction
consecration
,
as
diuers
other
diuines
doe
,
and
as
it
manifestlie
appeares
by
his
owne
wordes
vttered
presentlie
after
,
to
wit
those
which
Sir
Humfrey
cytes
,
saying
,
virtute
sermonis
Christi
factum
est
corpus
&
sanguis
Christi
:
that
is
,
by
virtue
of
Christs
speech
the
bodie
&
bloud
of
Christ
are
made
:
the
ignorant
knight
imagined
that
because
he
affirmed
before
that
Christ
by
benediction
made
his
bodie
,
therefore
he
made
it
without
those
wordes
this
is
my
bodie
:
which
neuerthelesse
are
the
verie
wordes
of
benediction
or
consecration
which
Christ
himselfe
vsed
.
True
it
is
Odo
speakes
some
thing
intricatelie
and
obscurelie
by
reason
of
his
breuitie
,
yet
those
plaine
wordes
which
followe
in
the
same
place
and
matter
,
videlicet
virtute
sermonis
Christi
fiunt
corpus
&
sanguis
Christi
,
doe
sufficientlie
explaine
the
authours
mynde
,
and
serue
for
a
cleare
exposition
of
the
rest
,
as
the
iudicious
reader
of
his
whole
text
,
will
easilie
perceiue
.
Concerning
the
citation
of
Christopher
De
capite
fontium
I
suspect
there
is
some
legerdemaine
vsed
in
it
:
because
it
seemes
not
to
me
a
thing
credible
that
anie
man
of
learning
,
and
iudgement
as
he
is
held
to
be
,
should
be
so
farre
out
of
temper
as
peremptorilic
to
conclude
for
an
infallible
truth
to
which
scriptures
,
Councels
and
all
antiquitite
yeald
an
vndeniable
testimonie
and
consent
that
the
wordes
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
are
not
the
wordes
of
consecration
,
how
be
it
the
might
say
with
the
opinion
of
some
others
that
those
are
not
the
wordes
by
which
Christ
himselfe
consecrated
,
which
point
as
it
is
not
yet
declared
by
the
Church
as
a
matter
of
faith
,
so
neither
is
it
pertinent
to
the
matter
we
here
treat
,
if
so
it
were
:
as
being
no
denyall
of
transubstantiation
,
which
onelie
is
here
in
question
and
not
the
wordes
of
consecration
.
and
consequentlie
if
that
authour
(
whome
I
could
not
haue
whereby
to
examen
the
truth
)
if
I
say
he
speakes
in
that
sense
onelie
,
then
his
testimonie
was
cyted
in
vaine
.
As
also
I
may
not
rashelie
auouch
that
,
especiallie
if
he
meanes
in
the
other
sense
,
and
as
according
to
their
rehearsall
of
our
aduersarie
,
the
wordes
doe
sounde
.
That
surelie
he
had
tasted
of
a
wrong
fountaine
when
he
spoake
in
such
an
exorbitant
manner
,
if
so
he
euer
spoake
.
I
haue
exactelie
examined
Card.
Aliaco
,
and
finde
he
speakes
in
those
wordes
cyted
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
onely
of
the
possibility
of
the
coexistence
or
presence
of
the
substance
of
the
bread
&
the
bodie
of
Christ
vnder
the
same
accidents
,
which
possibilitie
he
affirmes
neither
to
repugne
to
reason
nor
to
the
bible
,
no
more
then
that
two
quantities
or
qualities
may
possiblie
stande
together
vnder
one
matter
videlicet
de
potentia
absoluta
,
that
is
by
the
absolute
power
of
God
:
which
is
true
in
regarde
that
no
text
of
scripture
can
be
found
to
such
contrarie
possibility
,
nor
implication
of
contradiction
in
reason
.
But
all
this
how
true
soeuer
it
is
,
yet
is
it
out
of
the
purpose
and
state
of
our
question
,
which
is
not
about
the
possibilitie
,
but
aboute
the
fact
of
transsubstantiation
,
in
which
point
the
resolution
of
this
authour
is
plainelie
for
vs
saying
that
altho'
it
doth
not
euidentlie
followe
of
the
scripture
that
the
substance
of
the
bread
doth
absolutelie
cease
to
be
,
nor
yet
,
as
it
seemes
to
me
,
of
the
determination
of
the
Church
,
neuerthelesse
because
,
saith
he
,
it
doth
more
fauore
the
determination
of
the
Church
and
the
common
opinion
of
the
holie
Fathers
and
Doctours
,
therefore
I
hould
it
.
And
this
same
is
that
which
the
Councell
of
Trent
declares
:
to
which
doctrine
if
Sir
Humfrey
would
consent
as
farre
as
Aliaco
,
this
disputation
were
at
an
end
,
for
that
here
is
nothingels
required
either
of
him
or
any
other
of
his
profession
but
that
they
obey
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
in
her
definition
.
In
his
111.
page
the
knight
proceedes
most
sophisticallie
in
this
same
matter
,
where
,
vpon
a
false
if
,
or
conditionallie
false
supposition
that
neither
according
to
the
doctrine
of
S.
Thomas
,
the
Roman
Cathechisme
,
and
the
Masse-Preists
,
as
he
pleaseth
to
terme
them
,
the
consecrated
bread
is
transubstantiated
by
Christs
benediction
before
those
wordes
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
be
vttered
,
nor
by
the
same
wordes
vttered
after
benediction
,
as
saith
he
,
the
Archbishop
of
Cefarea
and
others
doe
affirme
;
he
presentlie
thence
inferres
that
absolutelie
there
are
no
wordes
at
all
in
the
scripture
to
proue
transubstantiation
for
an
article
of
faith
:
which
collection
of
his
neuerthelesse
is
no
other
then
to
deduce
for
conclusion
of
his
discourse
an
absolute
proposition
from
a
conditionall
and
this
also
grounded
vpon
a
meere
equiuocation
:
for
admit
it
is
true
that
the
foresaid
authours
doe
not
agree
whether
determinately
transubstantiation
be
made
by
the
benediction
,
or
by
the
wordes
of
consecration
,
yet
they
all
accorde
most
constantlie
and
conformablie
in
this
,
that
by
one
of
the
two
,
to
wit
either
by
benediction
or
consecration
,
or
at
the
least
by
both
the
one
and
the
other
,
the
transubstantiation
is
vndoubtedlie
effected
,
and
consequentlie
they
agree
vnanimouslie
against
the
position
of
Sir
Humfrey
,
affirming
that
there
be
no
words
of
scripture
to
proue
the
same
.
And
the
trueth
is
that
Sir
Humfreys
captious
ratiocination
proues
no
more
than
if
two
should
argue
,
the
one
that
the
colour
of
the
sea
water
is
greene
and
the
other
blewe
,
&
that
some
ignorant
Cockes-come
should
step
in
and
tell
them
that
it
followes
on
their
variance
in
opinion
that
the
Sea
water
hath
no
colour
at
all
.
Which
who
so
euer
should
presume
to
doe
he
deserued
to
be
soundlie
hist
at
for
his
audacious
follie
,
&
so
doth
Sir
Humfrey
.
And
as
for
Biell
whome
the
knight
cites
saying
,
it
is
not
expressed
in
scripture
how
the
body
of
Christ
is
in
the
Sacrament
,
he
hath
indeed
those
wordes
which
are
quoted
by
him
,
tho'
not
in
his
49.
as
he
puts
it
,
but
in
his
40.
lection
vpon
the
Canon
:
but
yet
this
his
saying
is
not
contrarie
to
the
Romanists
who
easilie
admit
that
the
manner
of
the
existence
or
being
of
Christs
bodie
in
the
Eucharist
,
is
neither
expressedlie
declared
in
the
Scripture
,
nor
yet
in
all
ages
,
and
by
all
authours
expressedlie
tought
in
the
Church
as
matter
of
faith
:
neuerthelesse
this
authour
himselfe
in
the
same
place
addes
in
plaine
wordes
,
that
now
that
opinion
which
defendes
transubstantiation
is
receiued
by
all
Catholikes
,
yealding
for
a
reason
of
the
same
,
because
(
saith
he
)
we
ought
to
hould
of
the
Sacraments
as
the
holie
Roman
Church
doth
hould
.
And
afterwards
he
addes
.
Wherefore
because
by
the
determination
of
the
Church
conformable
to
the
authorities
of
the
holie
Fathers
we
ought
to
beleeue
that
the
bodie
of
Christ
is
in
the
Sacrament
by
conuersion
of
the
bread
into
it
,
we
are
to
fee
&c.
And
the
like
I
say
of
Scotus
,
&
Yribarne
his
Scholar
,
who
altho'
they
seeme
to
diminish
the
antiquitie
of
transubstantiation
,
yet
their
meaning
onelie
is
that
it
was
not
in
auncient
times
declaredlie
proposed
by
Publike
authoritie
of
the
Church
as
an
article
of
faith
:
yet
both
of
them
expresselie
beleeuing
and
defending
the
same
professedlie
as
a
matter
of
faith
.
And
by
occasion
of
this
,
I
desire
the
reader
to
take
notice
that
whensoeuer
he
findes
anie
Catholike
authours
to
say
that
this
or
that
doctrine
was
not
a
matter
of
faith
before
this
or
that
time
,
their
meaning
is
not
that
the
obiect
in
it selfe
was
no
matter
of
faith
in
anie
one
time
since
it
was
first
reueiled
by
God
,
either
expresselie
in
it selfe
or
as
included
in
some
other
veritie
,
but
onelie
that
it
was
not
expresselie
and
generallie
knowne
,
and
beleeued
for
such
by
all
faithfull
people
,
by
reason
it
was
as
then
not
declared
and
proposed
publikelie
vnto
them
by
the
Church
in
anie
Generall
Councell
.
For
that
as
much
as
concernes
the
doctrine
in
itselfe
,
it
is
no
more
an
article
of
faith
after
the
definition
and
declaration
of
the
Church
then
it
was
euen
before
it
was
so
defined
,
as
may
appeare
in
the
consubstantialitie
of
the
eternall
sonne
with
his
eternall
Father
,
in
the
vnitie
of
person
in
Christ
and
the
distinction
of
natures
and
the
like
:
which
in
them selues
were
reueiled
verites
and
matter
of
faith
euer
since
the
newe
Testament
and
the
lawe
of
Christ
was
published
to
the
world
,
not
obstanding
they
were
not
declaredlie
and
vniuersallie
knowne
for
such
in
a
long
time
after
to
wit
not
till
the
time
of
the
Nicene
,
Ephesin
,
&
Chalcedon
Councels
in
which
they
were
defined
and
proposed
for
matter
of
faith
against
the
Arian
,
Nestorian
&
Euthycian
heretikes
.
And
according
to
this
rule
it
passeth
in
our
case
of
transubstantiation
for
declaration
of
which
this
breefe
obseruation
may
suffice
to
satisfie
anie
indifferent
mynde
.
Nowe
as
I
said
of
Scotus
and
Yribarne
,
the
like
I
say
of
Caietan
cited
by
the
knight
out
of
suarez
,
in
his
comment
.
vpon
S.
Thomas
page
108.
who
altho'
in
it
vpon
the
first
art
.
Of
the
15.
quest.
he
saith
transubstantiation
,
which
ther
he
calles
conuersion
,
is
not
in
the
Euangell
expresselie
,
conuersio
non
habetur
explicitein
Euangelio
:
and
before
he
saith
:
we
expresselie
receiued
from
the
Church
that
which
the
Gospell
did
not
explicate
.
Yet
afterwardes
,
the
same
authour
expresselie
teaches
and
inculcates
that
those
wordes
:
this
is
my
bodie
:
cause
both
the
reall
presence
and
transubstantiation
.
For
thus
&
addes
.
Et
perhoc
,
verbae
Christi
:
hoc
est
corpus
meum
:
quia
efficiunt
vtramque
nouitatem
scrilicet
conuersionis
&
continentiae
&c.
That
is
.
And
by
this
,
because
the
wordes
of
Christ
:
this
is
my
bodie
:
doe
effect
both
nouelties
videlicet
of
the
conuersion
,
and
the
containing
.
By
which
wordes
it
is
manifest
what
this
authours
meaning
was
absolutelie
touching
the
reall
presence
,
&
transubstantiation
;
howsoeuer
he
spoake
of
the
manner
in
which
it
is
contained
in
scripture
,
which
is
not
our
question
.
And
in
this
sense
speakes
Aliaco
when
he
saith
,
in
the
place
cited
by
our
aduersarie
,
that
manner
of
meaning
which
supposeth
the
substance
of
the
bread
to
remaine
still
a
possible
neither
it
is
contrarie
to
reason
,
nor
to
the
authority
of
the
scriptures
&c.
For
he
meaneth
onely
it
is
not
repugnant
to
anie
such
expresse
scripture
as
doth
conuince
the
transsubstantiatton
plainely
to
euerie
one
,
without
the
authoritie
and
declaration
of
the
Church
and
therfore
he
addeth
:
if
it
could
stand
with
the
determination
of
the
Church
:
in
which
Aliaco
showes
such
obedience
to
the
Church
as
Sir
Humfrey
and
his
fellowes
obstinately
denie
vnto
her
,
most
piously
captiuating
his
vnderstanding
euen
in
that
which
he
held
more
easie
,
and
conformable
to
reason
,
and
scripture
,
according
to
humaine
intelligence
and
discourse
.
More
euer
touching
the
citation
of
Bishop
Fisher
contra
cap.
Babyl
.
cap.
10.
His
intent
in
that
place
,
was
onely
to
proue
that
meerly
by
the
bare
wordes
of
scripture
without
the
traditionarie
interpretation
of
the
Fathers
,
no
certaintie
can
be
had
in
questions
of
controuersie
,
or
matters
of
faith
.
And
to
proue
this
(
which
is
a
direct
conclusion
against
Sir
Humfrey
and
the
rest
of
our
nouelists
)
he
argueth
exhiposthesi
,
or
vpon
supposition
,
saying
that
not
obstanding
it
is
true
and
certaine
that
our
Sauiour
by
vertue
of
those
wordes
:
this
is
my
bodie
:
did
make
his
owne
bodie
really
present
in
the
Sacrament
:
yet
if
one
were
obstinate
,
standing
preciselie
to
the
pure
text
without
the
interpretation
of
Fathers
,
and
sense
of
the
Church
,
he
might
denie
,
that
it
doth
thence
followe
that
in
our
Masse
,
Prests
make
really
present
the
bodie
of
Christ
.
Not
meaning
to
affirme
that
they
doe
not
in
deed
(
for
that
the
rest
of
his
booke
doth
demonstate
him
to
beleeue
the
reall
presence
in
Masse
especially
the
fourth
chapter
)
but
onely
intending
to
declare
by
examples
and
reasons
,
that
it
can
not
be
conuinced
that
Catholike
Prests
doe
so
,
by
pure
scripture
secluding
the
exposition
of
the
Doctours
of
the
Church
,
and
her
infallible
authoritie
.
And
now
this
being
the
true
sense
of
B.
Fishers
discourse
:
Sir
Humfrey
verie
coningly
,
by
leauing
out
the
precedent
,
and
subsequent
wordes
of
the
authour
,
so
manageth
the
matter
as
if
he
had
flatly
denied
that
the
reall
presence
of
the
bodie
,
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
can
be
proued
by
anie
scripture
to
be
made
in
the
Masse
.
And
that
,
this
is
the
true
meaning
of
this
authour
both
the
title
of
his
chapter
out
of
which
our
aduersarie
taketh
the
wordes
he
cites
,
which
is
this
.
Of
the
interpretation
of
scripture
by
Fathers
.
And
the
whole
tenor
of
his
discourse
,
doe
sufficiently
declare
,
so
that
if
the
matter
comes
to
scanning
,
the
fraude
will
easily
appeare
with
shame
enuffe
to
this
our
professed
aduersarie
of
truth
.
who
not
content
with
this
,
hath
also
like
a
cheating
gramster
to
mende
his
ill
game
,
dropt
a
carde
,
I
meane
the
worde
nostra
which
he
hath
left
out
in
his
translation
:
but
this
but
a
pore
trick
,
and
so
let
it
passe
.
And
perhaps
it
was
onely
the
negligence
of
the
printer
.
But
for
the
readers
better
instruction
I
will
punctually
rehearse
the
authors
wordes
concerning
his
true
meaning
,
as
well
those
which
Sir
Humfrey
hath
omitted
for
his
owne
aduantage
,
as
the
rest
.
Thus
he
saith
.
Doceamus
quod
citra
Patrum
interpretationem
&
vsum
ab
eisdem
nobis
traditum
,
nemo
probabit
ex
ipsis
nudis
Euangelij
verhis
sacerdotum
quempiam
his
temporibus
verum
Christi
Corpus
,
&
Sanguinem
consecrare
,
non
quod
res
haec
ambigua
fit
,
sed
quod
eius
certitudo
non
tam
haheatur
ex
Euangelij
verbis
quam
ex
Patrum
interpretatione
,
&
vsu
tanti
temporis
quem
illi
posteris
reliquerunt
.
That
is
let
vs
teach
that
without
the
interpretation
of
the
Fathers
,
and
the
practise
by
them
deliuered
vnto
vs
,
noman
can
proue
by
the
bare
wordes
of
the
Gospell
them selues
,
that
anie
man
in
these
our
times
doth
consecrate
the
true
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
not
because
this
thing
is
doubtfull
,
but
because
the
certainetie
of
it
can
not
be
had
so
much
by
the
wordes
of
the
Euangell
,
as
by
the
interpretation
of
Fathers
,
and
the
practise
of
so
long
time
,
which
they
left
to
posteritie
.
By
which
wordes
it
is
voyde
of
all
doubt
and
tergiuersation
,
that
the
authour
of
them
neuer
made
question
but
that
true
Catholike
Prests
,
as
he
him selfe
was
,
truly
consecrate
,
and
make
present
the
uerie
bodie
,
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
the
contrarie
of
which
our
aduersarie
pretendes
to
proue
:
onely
intending
by
this
pasage
and
others
to
declare
against
his
aduersarie
Martin
Luther
,
that
scriptures
alone
without
the
exposition
of
the
Fathers
and
practise
of
the
Church
,
are
not
sufficient
to
conuince
the
trueth
expecially
when
the
wordes
are
obscure
and
subiet
to
diuers
senses
.
And
therefore
in
his
page
172.
giuing
the
reason
of
this
,
he
saith
.
Hoc
idcirco
dixerim
ne
quis
ipsis
Euangelij
verbis
pertinacius
adhaereat
spreta
patrum
interpretatione
quemadmodum
Lutherus
fecit
,
vsum
,
&
interpretationem
a
patribus
traditam
nihili
pendens
,
&
nuditati
verborum
infistens
,
quae
non
sufficiunt
ad
id
quod
velint
conuincendum
.
Therefore
(
quoth
B.
Fistier
)
I
said
these
thinhs
least
anie
one
should
ouer
obstinately
adhere
to
the
wordes
of
the
Gospell
themselues
,
as
Luther
did
not
esteeming
the
vse
,
and
interpretation
deliuered
by
the
Fathers
,
and
insisting
in
the
nakednes
of
the
wordes
,
which
are
not
sufficient
to
conuince
that
which
they
desire
.
And
in
the
insuing
page
he
concludeth
in
this
manner
.
Therefore
that
is
manifest
which
afore
we
promised
to
sbow
,
to
wit
that
long
continuing
custome
,
and
concording
exposition
of
Fathers
none
dissenting
,
doth
yeald
more
solid
certainetie
how
anie
obscure
place
of
the
Ghospell
must
be
vnderstood
,
then
the
bare
wordes
;
which
may
be
varioufly
detorted
by
contentious
people
at
their
pleasure
.
By
all
which
wordes
it
is
more
then
certaine
and
manifest
that
this
authour
neuer
intended
to
show
that
the
reall
presence
of
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
can
not
be
proued
by
anie
scripture
to
be
made
in
the
Masse
,
as
our
false
aduersarie
doth
endeuore
to
persuade
his
reader
:
for
he
onely
affirmes
that
this
can
not
be
conuinced
by
the
bare
text
of
scripture
without
the
exposition
of
Fathers
,
if
anie
contensious
person
should
obstinately
denie
it
,
as
his
wordes
aboue
cited
,
euidently
declare
.
And
as
for
those
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
quotest
in
his
margent
which
in
English
are
these
.
Neither
is
there
anie
worde
put
there
by
which
the
verie
presence
of
the
flesh
,
and
bloud
of
Christ
may
be
proued
in
our
Masse
:
I
say
that
he
dealeth
not
honestlie
in
the
recitall
of
them
in
regarde
he
omittes
the
next
wordes
following
,
not
obstanding
they
belong
to
te
integritie
of
the
same
discourse
,
and
also
are
a
plaine
explication
of
the
former
as
the
reader
of
the
whole
discourse
may
more
clearely
vnderstand
,
the
wordes
being
these
.
For
altho'
(
saith
he
)
Christ
made
his
flesh
of
the
bread
,
and
his
bloud
of
rhe
wine
,
it
doth
not
therfore
follow
by
virtue
of
anie
worde
here
set
downe
,
that
we
as
often
as
we
attempt
the
same
,
doe
effect
it
.
In
which
as
the
reader
may
plainely
perceiue
,
the
authour
absolutelie
affirmeth
not
that
Preists
doe
not
effect
that
which
Christ
effected
concerning
the
reall
presence
of
his
bodie
and
bloud
in
the
Eucharist
,
but
onely
saith
there
(
that
is
among
the
wordes
of
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
as
they
are
related
,
by
S.
Math.
and
in
which
those
wordes
:
doe
this
in
remembrance
of
me
,
are
not
contained
)
there
is
not
anie
worde
by
virtue
of
which
the
same
can
be
concluded
of
Preists
which
is
ther
affirmed
of
Christ
our
Sauiour
:
yet
not
denying
,
but
expresselie
auerring
that
by
other
wordes
of
the
scripture
,
and
particularlie
by
those
wordes
rehearsed
by
S.
Luke
,
and
S.
Paule
:
doe
this
in
remembrance
of
me
:
interpreted
according
to
the
exposition
,
and
practise
of
the
auncient
Fathers
,
the
making
of
the
reall
presence
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrement
is
firmelie
proued
,
and
established
.
And
hence
it
is
that
after
he
had
vttered
those
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
also
citeth
,
tho'
not
intirely
;
to
wit
non
potest
igitur
probari
,
per
vllam
scripturam
,
it
can
not
therfore
be
proued
by
anie
scripture
that
either
laie
man
or
Priest
,
as
often
at
he
shall
make
triall
of
the
busines
,
shall
in
like
manner
make
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
of
bread
and
wine
,
as
he
him selfe
did
,
since
that
,
neither
this
is
contained
in
the
scripture
:
immetiatelie
after
this
I
say
,
he
subionines
for
conclusion
of
his
discourse
,
this
insuing
clause
.
By
these
things
I
thinke
no
man
will
be
ignorant
,
that
the
certaintie
of
this
matter
(
the
faith
of
consecration
,
as
the
note
in
his
margen
doth
declare
)
doth
not
so
much
depende
vpon
the
Ghospell
,
as
vpon
the
vse
,
and
custome
,
which
for
the
space
of
so
manie
ages
is
commended
vnto
vs
by
the
first
Fathers
themselues
.
For
it
seemed
to
them
,
the
holie
Ghost
teaching
,
so
to
interpret
this
parte
of
the
Euangell
,
and
iudged
it
was
so
to
be
vsed
in
their
times
:
that
whosoeuer
now
would
introduce
,
either
an
other
sense
,
or
an
other
vse
,
he
should
vtterlie
resist
the
holie
Ghost
,
by
whose
instinct
,
the
former
Fathers
did
deliuer
this
rite
,
and
ceremonie
,
in
the
consecration
of
the
Eucharist
.
Thus
plainelie
doth
Bishop
Fisher
explicate
his
owne
meaning
in
that
which
he
had
before
deliuered
somat
more
obscurelie
;
so
that
now
I
doubt
not
but
this
will
be
sufficient
to
make
the
reader
capable
of
the
authours
true
sense
,
in
which
I
was
forced
to
inlarge
my selfe
more
then
the
substance
of
the
matter
required
,
the
more
plainelie
to
discouer
vnto
him
the
fraude
of
the
aduerfarie
both
in
detorting
the
sense
,
and
mangling
the
tenor
,
or
continuation
of
the
text
of
this
most
Catholike
,
and
renowned
Prelate
.
Moreouer
Sir
Humfrey
allegeth
S.
Thomas
in
3.
par.
q.
75.
ar.
7.
as
also
the
Roman
Cathecisme
at
randome
.
as
affirming
that
the
substance
of
the
bread
remaines
till
the
last
worde
of
the
consecration
be
vttered
.
But
this
is
nothing
to
the
present
purpose
in
respect
that
how
long
souer
the
substance
of
the
bread
remaines
,
if
at
lenght
it
ceaseth
as
they
both
confesse
,
they
both
agree
with
vs
Romanists
and
not
with
the
nouellists
,
in
the
faith
of
transsubstantiation
so
professedly
,
that
it
was
more
then
ordinarie
impudencie
,
and
madnes
once
to
mentione
them
for
the
contrarie
.
Now
for
conclusion
of
the
second
paragraffe
of
his
9.
section
,
Sir
Humfrey
affirmes
in
his
115.
p.
out
of
Bell
:
and
suauez
,
that
manie
writers
in
our
Roman
Church
professe
the
tenet
of
transsubstantiatien
was
lately
receiued
for
a
point
of
faith
.
Which
affirmation
neuerthelesse
is
not
iustifiable
,
but
false
,
and
calumnious
to
the
authours
he
cyteth
for
it
,
videlicet
Scotus
,
Durand
,
Tunstal
,
Ostiensis
,
and
Gaufridus
.
Which
being
all
the
Romanists
he
either
did
or
could
produce
(
supposing
Erasmus
whome
he
likewise
alledgeth
,
is
no
Romanist
in
much
of
his
doctrine
,
in
what
faith
soeuer
he
ended
his
life
,
of
which
,
I
am
not
able
to
iudge
)
yet
none
of
these
Romanists
I
say
euer
affirmed
the
doctrine
of
transsubstantiation
to
be
no
point
of
faith
,
as
I
haue
aboue
sufficiently
declared
in
my
answer
to
euerie
one
of
their
testimonies
in
particular
.
And
touching
Bellarmin
and
suarez
the
one
being
alledged
by
our
aduersarie
as
affirming
Scotus
to
haue
said
,
that
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
,
was
not
dogmafidei
,
a
decree
of
faith
before
the
Councell
of
Lateran
:
the
other
as
aduising
to
haue
him
,
and
those
other
schoolemen
corrected
,
who
teach
that
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
is
not
verie
auncient
.
I
professe
I
haue
diligentlie
read
Scotus
in
this
matter
,
and
I
finde
he
onelie
saith
,
that
what
soeuer
is
auerred
to
be
beleeued
in
the
Councel
of
the
Lateran
capite
firmiter
,
is
to
beheld
de
substantia
fidei
as
of
the
substance
of
faith
after
that
solemne
declaration
:
yet
he
in
no
place
hath
this
negatiue
:
transsubstantiation
was
not
a
point
of
faith
before
that
Councel
,
not
obstanding
our
aduersaries
allegation
to
the
contrarie
out
of
the
Cardinal
,
who
,
if
he
conceiued
right
of
his
whole
discourse
,
could
not
iudge
Scotus
to
haue
absolutelie
denyed
transubstantiation
to
haue
beene
a
point
of
faith
in
it selfe
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
will
haue
it
:
but
at
the
most
quoad
nos
,
or
in
respect
of
our
expresse
and
publike
faith
of
the
same
.
For
that
some
of
Scotus
his
owne
wordes
plainelie
importe
that
trāssubstantiation
is
included
in
the
institution
of
the
Eucharist
,
howe
be
it
,
it
was
not
explicitly
or
expresselie
declared
for
such
in
all
ages
,
before
the
solemne
declaration
,
as
he
termeth
it
,
made
in
the
Generall
Councel
of
Lateran
.
The
wordes
of
Scotus
to
this
sense
and
purpose
are
these
.
For
it
was
not
in
the
power
of
the
Church
to
make
this
(
the
point
of
transsubstantiation
)
true
,
or
not
true
,
but
of
God
the
institutour
:
And
according
to
the
vnderstanding
deliuered
by
God
,
the
Church
did
explicate
it
,
directed
,
as
it
is
beleeued
,
by
the
spirit
of
trueth
.
By
which
ratiocination
or
discourse
,
of
Scotus
,
it
is
most
cleare
and
apparent
that
the
point
of
transsubstantiation
was
in
it selfe
a
matter
of
faith
euer
since
the
Sacrament
was
instituted
by
Christ
,
in
regarde
that
it
being
now
a
point
of
faith
,
it
must
of
necessitie
in
substance
haue
beene
ordained
for
such
by
God
himselfe
,
for
that
it
is
not
in
the
power
of
the
Church
to
make
,
but
onelie
to
declare
,
and
propose
to
beleeuers
,
the
articles
of
Religion
,
And
according
to
this
,
I
say
,
that
suarez
(
sauing
the
due
respect
I
owe
vnto
them
both
)
had
yet
lesse
reason
then
Bellarmin
had
concerning
Scotus
:
to
taxe
the
same
Scotus
and
some
other
diuines
,
as
if
they
had
tought
that
the
doctrine
of
transsubstantiation
is
not
verie
auncient
.
For
neyther
Scotus
as
his
wordes
which
I
haue
related
doe
testifie
,
nor
anie
other
approued
diuine
of
the
Roman
Church
,
doe
vse
anie
such
manner
of
speech
,
or
at
the
least
haue
no
such
sense
in
their
wordes
,
as
euen
by
all
those
their
seuerall
passages
which
our
aduersarie
could
alledge
,
doth
manifestlie
appeare
.
How
be
it
some
of
them
haue
not
omitted
to
say
,
that
the
worde
transsubstantiation
hath
not
beene
auncientlie
vsed
in
the
Church
,
but
eyther
inuented
by
the
Fathers
of
the
Lateran
Councel
,
or
not
long
before
:
or
at
the
most
,
that
there
haue
beene
some
in
the
world
of
a
contrarie
opinion
to
the
trueth
of
transsubstantiation
in
itselfe
:
which
altho'
we
Romanists
should
graunt
to
be
true
;
yet
doth
it
not
argue
anie
noueltie
in
the
doctrine
,
but
rather
the
nouellitie
of
some
fewe
extrauagant
wits
,
as
heretiks
or
corrigible
Catholikes
,
in
opposing
the
same
,
which
otherwise
was
generallie
maintained
by
the
rest
of
the
Orthodox
diuines
in
all
succeeding
ages
:
the
antiquitie
of
which
doctrine
,
euen
those
same
authorities
which
the
same
Scotus
himselfe
professeth
to
be
produced
by
him
out
of
S.
Ambrose
,
In
the
last
place
the
knight
citeth
for
his
tenet
Erasmus
but
he
might
haue
saued
the
labour
for
that
the
Romanists
hould
him
absolutely
for
none
of
theirs
(
as
in
like
manner
neither
doe
they
acknowledge
wicklif
and
the
waldensians
which
neuertelesse
he
was
not
ashamed
to
produce
for
his
tenet
though
onely
by
waye
of
omission
)
howbeit
in
this
particular
Erasmus
onely
affirmeth
that
it
was
late
before
the
Church
definde
it
,
which
is
not
contrarie
to
the
certainetie
of
the
doctrine
in
it selfe
,
but
onely
a
superficiall
relation
of
the
time
when
it
was
declared
expressely
for
a
matter
of
faith
or
infalible
trueth
in
that
nature
.
And
now
of
this
and
the
rest
of
the
testimonies
which
haue
beene
discussed
in
this
paragraffe
which
if
it
had
not
beene
for
the
satisfaction
of
the
common
people
which
may
easily
be
deluded
by
them
I
would
neuer
haue
prosecuted
so
largely
,
as
containinge
noething
worthie
of
a
scholers
labour
:
it
may
I
say
be
easily
collected
and
perceiued
how
fondly
he
concludeth
his
whole
discourse
as
if
he
had
made
it
appeare
that
the
reformed
faith
touching
the
spirituall
and
sacramentall
participation
of
Christs
bodie
,
had
beene
generally
beleeued
and
taugh
both
in
the
former
and
later
ages
,
and
as
if
the
doctrine
of
transsubstantiation
had
noe
vnity
among
the
Romish
authours
,
nor
vniuersalitie
among
the
auncient
Fathers
,
nor
certainety
in
the
scriptures
.
This
I
say
is
a
most
impudent
vaunt
of
the
bragadocho
knight
,
for
that
it
hath
beene
already
made
manifest
by
the
same
testimonies
which
he
produceth
against
the
Roman
doctrine
,
that
not
onely
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
the
same
in
those
two
points
stands
firme
and
sound
,
but
that
there
is
no
antiquitie
or
vniuersalitie
at
all
to
be
found
in
the
doctrine
of
the
reformed
Churhes
in
those
particulars
:
to
say
nothing
of
other
points
of
their
deformed
faith
,
and
so
this
shall
suffice
for
the
censure
of
this
paragraffe
which
as
it
is
larger
in
wordes
then
the
former
so
deserueth
it
a
larger
sentence
of
condemnation
as
conteining
noething
more
but
a
greater
multitude
of
diuerse
sorts
of
ill
proceeding
.
The
third
paragraffe
is
of
priuate
Masse
in
which
for
the
honour
as
I
suppose
which
he
beareth
towards
the
mother
Church
he
placeth
her
definition
in
the
first
ranke
,
and
then
afterwardes
the
article
of
his
owne
Church
.
The
decree
of
the
councell
of
Trent
.
ses.
22.
can.
8.
is
this
.
If
ame
shall
say
that
Masses
in
which
the
Priest
alone
doth
communicate
are
vnlawfull
and
therefore
ought
to
be
abrogared
,
let
him
be
accursed
,
but
the
article
of
the
reformed
Church
will
not
haue
it
so
,
but
protesteth
that
priuate
Masses
that
is
the
receauing
of
the
Eucharist
by
the
Priest
alone
with
out
a
competent
number
of
communicants
is
contrarie
to
te
institution
of
Christ
and
the
practise
of
the
primatiue
Church
.
Thus
the
knight
setteth
downe
the
matter
of
disputation
,
thus
he
placeth
the
two
armies
in
battle
aray
with
their
contrarie
collours
one
confronting
the
other
.
And
this
speciall
difference
I
note
in
them
,
that
the
one
armie
consists
of
milites
veterani
that
is
of
ould
Roman
souldiers
gathered
out
of
the
whole
Roman
Empire
and
Christian
world
,
the
other
of
fresh
men
fetched
from
a
corner
of
the
world
that
is
from
Ireland
.
Loe
heere
the
armies
set
in
order
,
now
let
vs
see
who
carries
away
the
victorie
.
You
may
perceiue
by
Sir
Humfreys
relation
that
the
Councell
speaketh
with
authoritie
,
it
intimateth
those
aged
Synods
of
the
primatiue
Church
,
it
doth
so
fulminate
that
it
maketh
the
reformed
brothers
tremble
to
heere
it
.
Naye
it
seemes
it
so
daunteth
the
valiant
knight
that
he
found
no
other
refuge
then
to
flie
to
Ireland
for
an
article
of
his
faith
.
A
man
would
rather
haue
expected
that
to
confront
the
Councell
of
Trent
and
it
definition
,
Sir
Humfrey
would
haue
had
recourse
to
the
Councell
of
Gapp
.
or
of
Dort
,
or
to
some
consistorie
assemblie
of
Geneua
,
or
to
an
Acte
of
an
English
Parleament
.
But
alas
the
poore
Caualier
found
so
small
hope
of
assistance
in
these
,
that
he
was
constrained
to
saile
to
Ireland
for
an
Irish
article
as
he
himselfe
doth
tearme
it
.
True
it
is
the
Irish
article
directlie
opposeth
the
definition
of
the
Councell
,
but
by
what
authority
I
know
not
,
yet
certaine
it
is
that
in
the
Councell
of
Trent
there
were
assembled
by
themselues
or
their
legates
,
or
at
the
least
conuented
,
all
the
Princes
both
of
the
ould
and
newe
Religion
,
and
Prelates
of
the
Christian
world
,
as
the
Bull
of
indiction
,
and
the
oration
had
in
the
last
session
most
plainelie
testifie
.
And
so
the
authoritie
of
this
Synod
euen
in
common
sense
must
needes
be
verie
great
:
but
the
authoritie
of
the
articles
which
our
knight
opposeth
to
the
Councell
,
what
authoritie
they
had
,
is
yet
vnknowne
:
neither
could
they
possible
haue
anie
authoritie
of
greate
moment
,
for
that
they
were
gathered
onelie
out
of
a
verie
small
corner
of
the
Christian
world
,
and
farre
inferiour
in
vertue
,
learning
,
and
other
naturall
parts
to
the
most
greate
,
graue
and
venerable
number
of
the
members
of
the
foresaid
Synod
.
Wherefore
let
the
indifferent
reader
iudge
whether
of
these
two
armies
is
to
be
followed
.
The
authours
of
the
article
protest
that
priuate
Masse
is
contrarie
to
the
institution
of
Christ
and
the
practice
of
the
Church
,
and
hence
the
knight
inferreth
that
it
is
vnlawfull
and
therefore
to
be
abrogated
:
and
farther
that
the
Councell
of
Trent
by
cursing
those
who
hould
that
masses
in
which
the
Priest
alone
doth
comunicate
are
vnlawfull
and
ought
to
be
abrogated
,
doth
cursse
Christ
that
ordeined
it
and
God
that
commaunded
vs
to
obserue
it
.
Heere
you
see
the
knight
talketh
with
as
greate
authoritie
as
if
he
were
the
greatest
graduate
,
either
in
Oxford
or
Cambridge
,
neuerthelesse
he
must
giue
him
leaue
who
is
no
graduate
to
let
him
knowe
that
he
fayleth
mightilie
in
his
colection
,
yet
not
so
much
in
the
gradation
it selfe
as
in
the
premises
,
which
being
either
false
or
at
the
least
aequiuocall
,
the
conclusion
must
of
necessitie
be
faultie
.
That
which
deceiued
him
is
his
Irish
article
of
faith
in
that
it
affirmeth
the
receiuing
of
the
Eucharist
without
a
competent
number
of
comunicants
,
is
contrarie
to
the
institution
of
Christ
.
For
though
it
is
true
that
when
Christ
instituted
the
Sacrament
,
he
did
actuallie
comunicate
those
that
were
present
,
yet
it
is
not
true
that
he
included
in
the
institution
of
it
that
iust
so
in
all
occasions
it
should
be
practized
,
neither
gaue
he
anie
negatiue
precept
therein
in
that
respect
,
but
onelie
an
affirmatiue
which
according
to
it
nature
,
not
allwayes
but
onelie
according
to
time
,
place
,
and
persons
,
obledgeth
.
So
that
the
distribution
is
neither
anie
essentiall
parte
of
the
Sacrament
,
nor
yet
anie
necessarie
propertie
of
it
to
be
in
all
occasions
exercised
,
but
rather
appertaineth
onelie
to
the
due
administration
of
it
according
to
the
foresaid
circumstances
:
and
heerein
consists
the
aequiuocation
of
the
first
article
.
Now
touching
the
second
part
which
affirmeth
that
the
receiuing
of
the
Priests
alone
is
contrarie
to
the
practice
of
the
primatiue
church
,
is
also
equiuocall
,
for
if
it
meanes
that
the
primatiue
Church
did
in
all
circumstances
of
time
,
place
,
and
persons
,
practice
the
same
either
by
virtue
of
Christs
institution
or
commaund
,
so
it
is
false
as
we
haue
alreadie
showed
:
but
if
it
meanes
onely
that
indeede
so
it
was
practized
in
the
primatiue
Church
either
alwaies
,
or
for
the
moste
parte
,
yet
not
as
a
thing
alsolutely
necessarie
either
by
virtue
of
Christs
institution
or
precept
,
so
we
cannot
deny
but
that
it
is
true
which
the
second
parte
of
the
article
affirmeth
,
but
then
this
being
a
matter
in
this
sense
either
of
indifferencie
or
at
the
most
of
greater
merit
and
perfection
,
it
might
lawfully
be
altered
by
an
introduction
of
the
contrarie
custome
or
practise
of
the
Church
,
especially
the
communicating
or
not
communicating
of
the
auditours
of
euerie
Masse
being
a
thing
wholelie
depending
vpon
the
deuotion
of
the
people
themselues
.
Which
deuotion
although
the
Church
could
haue
desired
it
had
continued
in
the
same
feruour
in
which
it
was
in
those
primitiue
times
,
neuerthelesse
ther
was
no
reason
why
either
she
should
obledge
the
people
to
the
same
,
or
yet
that
the
Preist
for
want
of
deuotion
in
the
people
,
should
omitte
his
owne
,
and
cease
to
exercise
so
high
and
profitable
a
function
to
the
members
of
the
whole
Church
as
is
the
publique
liturgie
and
common
praier
of
the
same
.
And
truelie
this
is
a
matter
so
conformable
to
reason
and
pietie
that
if
it
were
not
that
our
aduersaries
are
quite
possessed
with
a
spirit
of
contradiction
they
would
neuer
contend
so
much
aboute
it
as
they
doe
,
Especially
supposing
that
of
all
points
of
controuersie
betweene
them
and
vs
that
is
of
the
least
moment
,
and
a
thing
for
which
they
haue
the
smalest
reason
to
striue
as
well
because
they
themselues
reiect
all
sorts
of
Masses
as
vaine
and
superstitious
whether
they
be
priuate
or
publique
,
with
communion
of
the
people
or
without
:
as
also
because
euen
they
themselues
after
their
newe
manner
celebrate
their
owne
liturgie
as
they
call
it
,
oftentimes
yea
most
ordinarily
not
onely
without
the
comunion
of
the
people
,
but
euen
with
out
the
comunion
of
either
Priest
or
clarke
,
as
is
euident
by
the
most
common
practise
of
all
the
reformed
Churches
,
which
onely
with
a
drie
fothering
passe
the
greater
part
of
the
sundaies
of
the
whole
yeere
.
And
yet
these
same
Zealous
brothers
are
so
Crosse
in
their
proceedinge
that
they
are
not
ashamed
to
reprehend
in
vs
the
same
which
they
themselues
ordinarily
practise
in
a
much
worse
manner
.
In
regard
of
which
preposterous
dealing
of
theirs
in
my
opinion
we
may
not
vnaptlie
applie
vnto
them
the
saying
of
a
certaine
ingenious
Protestant
in
his
description
of
a
Puritan
,
to
wit
that
they
are
become
so
crosse
in
their
teaching
,
that
he
thinkes
verily
,
that
if
the
Roman
Church
should
inioyne
the
puting
on
of
cleane
shirts
euery
sunday
,
rather
then
obey
her
precept
,
they
would
goe
lowsie
.
But
besides
this
Sir
Humfrey
for
the
proofe
of
his
Irish
faith
alledgeth
scripture
out
of
S.
Matth.
26.
Marke
14.
Luke
22.
but
the
wordes
he
citeth
doe
not
argue
Christs
institution
in
both
kindes
in
respect
of
all
sortes
of
people
,
and
he
blessed
it
,
puting
onely
the
wordes
of
thankes
giuing
,
whereas
yet
the
Greeke
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
both
blessing
and
giuing
thankes
,
&
therefore
when
our
Sauiour
multiplied
miraculously
the
fishes
Luc.
9.
the
Euangelist
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
he
blessed
them
.
The
knight
also
citeth
a
place
of
S.
Paule
1.
Cor.
11.
But
the
Apostle
indeed
reprehendeth
there
the
fault
of
the
richer
Corinthians
in
that
they
did
exclude
or
at
the
least
not
expect
the
poorer
sorte
to
eate
the
vsuall
supper
with
them
,
when
they
met
to
gether
to
receiue
the
blessed
Sacrament
,
but
giueth
no
precept
to
them
that
all
that
are
present
should
euerie
time
they
did
meete
in
the
Church
actually
receiue
the
communion
,
with
the
Preist
:
or
that
the
Preist
ougth
not
in
anie
case
to
celebrate
without
a
competent
number
of
communicants
,
which
is
our
question
in
this
place
:
but
at
the
most
S.
Paule
there
ordaines
that
when
the
people
comes
together
to
eate
either
the
vsuall
and
common
supper
,
or
the
bodie
and
bloude
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
,
they
vncharitablie
exclude
not
or
preuent
one
an
other
,
but
expect
,
and
doe
it
with
order
and
sobrietie
,
and
like
brethren
together
,
without
scisme
or
separation
:
and
as
Christ
himselfe
did
who
imparted
his
supper
most
louinglie
to
his
disciples
there
present
without
exception
of
persons
:
to
which
altho'
I
admit
the
same
S.
Paule
in
parte
alludes
in
his
first
verse
of
this
chapter
;
saying
:
be
you
followers
of
me
as
I
also
of
Christ
,
yet
not
in
that
sense
as
if
he
had
persuaded
the
Corinthians
that
our
Sauiour
commaunded
that
the
Eucharist
should
neuer
be
celebrated
by
the
Preist
alone
with
our
receiuers
,
as
our
aduersarie
foundlie
infers
for
profe
of
the
article
he
opposeth
to
the
Councell
of
Trent
.
Neyther
is
the
doctrine
of
that
article
in
anie
sorte
fauoured
by
S.
Augustin
in
his
118.
Epistle
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
:
he
onelie
there
affirming
at
the
most
that
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
the
Eucharist
,
when
he
saith
those
wordes
:
Propter
quod
fratres
cum
conuenitis
ad
manducandum
inuicem
expectate
.
&c.
That
is
in
English
:
Therefore
my
brethren
,
when
you
come
to
eate
,
expect
one
an
other
&c.
Which
wordes
eyther
of
S.
Augustin
,
or
those
of
the
Apostle
,
are
not
contrarie
to
the
celebration
of
priuate
Masses
except
it
be
in
the
imagination
of
the
Nouellists
,
as
I
haue
sufficientlie
aboue
declared
:
To
omit
that
the
greater
parte
of
diuines
both
auncient
&
moderne
,
expounde
not
those
wordes
of
S.
Paule
rather
of
the
Eucharist
but
of
the
common
supper
,
the
trueth
of
which
exposition
the
text
itselfe
,
in
my
iudgement
,
doth
plainely
conuince
.
Yet
not
to
stand
vpon
this
it
is
sufficient
for
the
defence
of
the
doctrine
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
,
in
this
particular
and
confutation
of
the
contrarie
position
,
that
neyther
in
the
cited
place
of
S.
Paule
,
nor
in
anie
other
place
of
scripture
,
priuate
communion
,
or
receiuing
of
the
Preist
alone
without
other
companie
,
is
affirmed
to
be
repugnant
to
Christs
institution
:
nor
condemned
as
vnlawfull
eyther
by
Sainct
Augustin
or
anie
other
Orthodox
writer
.
But
yet
I
must
further
aduertise
the
reader
that
I
perceiue
Sir
Humfrey
hath
not
dealte
so
faithfully
as
he
ought
to
haue
,
in
his
recitall
of
S.
Paules
wordes
,
putting
in
by
parenthesis
and
in
the
same
letter
those
(
to
eate
the
lords
supper
)
which
wordes
neuerthelesse
S.
Paule
hath
not
,
at
the
least
in
that
place
,
and
then
omiting
the
first
wordes
of
the
next
verse
he
connecteth
them
with
the
latter
parte
of
the
same
verse
,
to
wit
:
that
you
come
not
together
to
iudgement
.
Procuring
by
this
fraude
to
persuade
his
reader
that
those
wordes
containe
the
penaltie
due
to
those
whoe
communicate
not
with
the
Preist
and
the
rest
of
the
people
which
directly
they
doe
not
,
but
rather
the
punishment
amenaced
by
the
Apostle
to
such
as
by
excluding
vncharitably
ther
fellowes
from
participation
of
the
oblations
,
or
common
supper
then
vsed
in
the
Church
,
and
by
other
abuses
and
sinnes
mentioned
in
this
Epistle
,
indignelie
receiue
the
bodie
,
&
bloud
of
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
.
And
yet
not
to
stand
vpon
these
particular
circumstances
,
certaine
,
it
is
that
none
of
them
could
yeald
anie
warrant
at
all
for
Sir
Humfrey
to
alter
the
tenour
of
the
Apostles
wordes
either
by
addition
,
or
transposition
of
them
.
Sir
Humfrey
addeth
also
that
Sainct
Paule
1.
Cor.
10.
calleth
the
Eucharist
the
communion
.
But
he
might
haue
saued
labour
in
citing
scripture
,
the
commonly
receiued
phrase
both
by
vs
and
them
being
sufficient
to
prooue
that
.
And
yet
he
might
much
better
haue
spared
the
interpretation
of
the
worde
it
selfe
for
whether
his
etimology
be
true
or
false
,
which
I
will
not
stand
to
examen
,
certaine
it
is
that
no
iudicious
man
can
thence
inferre
that
all
the
people
present
at
Masse
must
of
necessity
communicate
,
but
it
onely
foloweth
that
when
they
actually
receiue
the
Sacrament
,
they
receiue
the
Communion
as
a
common
vnion
not
onely
of
Preist
&
people
but
also
and
ceefly
of
the
people
among
themselues
,
according
to
the
wordes
of
the
same
Apostle
in
his
next
chapter
and
33.
verse
cum
conuenitis
,
when
you
come
together
to
eate
expect
one-another
&c.
And
much
like
as
he
did
proceede
in
the
former
place
of
S.
Paule
,
so
doth
he
in
this
:
The
cup
of
blessing
which
we
blesse
,
is
it
not
the
communion
of
the
bloud
of
Christ
?
Where
for
,
communication
he
puts
communion
.
And
yet
the
scope
and
sense
of
the
Apostle
in
this
place
is
not
of
the
communion
of
Preist
and
people
,
nor
prescribes
he
anie
rule
in
that
nature
,
but
onelie
reprehendes
those
who
voluntarily
and
without
ignorance
eate
idolothytes
or
meates
sacrifyced
to
Idols
,
saying
that
as
those
who
receiue
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
comunicate
or
are
ioyned
in
societie
with
him
:
so
they
who
of
knowledge
eate
things
offered
to
Idols
are
made
companions
of
the
deuill
.
And
therefore
the
same
Apostle
in
the
latter
parte
of
his
20.
verse
saith
thus
.
And
I
will
not
haue
you
become
fellowes
to
deuils
.
And
presentlie
in
the
next
verse
he
addes
:
You
can
not
drinke
the
chalis
of
our
Lord
,
and
the
chalis
of
deuils
.
So
that
the
whole
tenour
of
the
chapter
afordeth
not
a
worde
or
letter
for
Sir
Humfreyes
purpose
.
Wherefore
let
him
examen
his
conscience
diligentlie
,
and
he
will
easilie
finde
that
neyther
the
one
place
nor
the
other
proue
anie
thing
else
in
this
matter
then
his
owne
dishonest
dealing
,
and
his
abuse
of
the
sacred
text
of
scripture
.
Especiallie
considering
that
in
the
first
place
,
the
Apostle
reprehendes
not
the
Corinthians
so
much
because
they
did
not
communicate
together
,
but
cheefelie
because
the
rich
did
vnchristianlie
exclude
the
poore
.
Which
case
as
the
reader
may
easilie
perceiue
,
hath
no
place
in
the
Masses
of
the
Roman
Church
,
where
none
are
excluded
but
rather
expresselie
exhorted
vnto
the
communion
,
as
the
verie
same
decree
of
the
Tridentine
Councel
which
our
aduersarie
him
produces
,
doth
sufficientlie
declare
in
these
wordes
.
Optaret
quidem
sacrosancta
Synodus
&c.
The
Sacrosaint
Synod
could
wish
that
the
faithfull
people
which
assiste
at
euerie
masse
would
communicate
with
the
Preist
,
not
onelie
spirituallie
,
but
also
by
Sacramentall
reception
.
Thus
the
Councel
.
Which
wordes
alone
doubtlesse
were
sufficient
not
onelie
to
iustifie
the
practise
of
the
present
Roman
Church
in
this
particular
,
but
also
to
satisfie
the
aduerse
parte
,
if
their
importunitie
were
not
so
exobbitant
,
that
they
will
rather
suffer
pore
Christians
to
passe
out
of
the
world
without
that
diuine
viaticum
ordained
by
God
for
the
confort
of
their
soules
,
&
defense
against
their
enimies
in
that
dangerous
trance
,
then
suffer
them
to
receiue
it
without
a
competent
number
as
they
tearme
it
:
which
impious
order
of
theirs
may
be
seene
in
their
booke
of
common
prayer
title
of
the
communion
of
the
sicke
:
not
obstanding
our
Sauiours
most
strict
,
and
generall
charge
affirming
that
vnlesse
we
eate
his
flesh
,
and
drinke
his
bloud
,
we
cannot
haue
life
in
vs
.
But
certaine
it
is
that
in
this
as
is
in
other
matters
the
pretensiue
reformers
may
ritelie
be
compared
to
the
Pharisees
,
exolantes
culicem
,
camelum
autem
glucientes
I
who
straine
a
gnat
,
and
swallowe
a
camel
,
in
that
they
stande
so
peremptorilie
vpon
the
communion
of
the
people
with
the
Preist
in
all
occasions
which
is
but
a
circumstance
of
the
precept
:
and
yet
make
no
scruple
of
violating
the
precept
itselfe
euen
in
time
of
it
greatest
necessitie
and
obligation
.
But
this
I
speake
onelie
vpon
supposition
their
communion
were
sounde
and
according
to
Christs
instition
,
for
taking
it
as
it
is
,
the
want
of
it
is
no
losse
to
the
not
receiuers
of
it
:
and
so
I
leaue
them
to
the
generall
liberty
they
vsurpe
as
well
in
this
as
in
other
matters
of
Religion
,
and
auncient
practise
of
the
Church
.
Furthermore
the
knight
citeth
the
councell
of
Nants
,
to
proue
his
tenet
,
but
most
ridiculously
.
For
that
there
is
not
a
worde
touching
the
communion
in
all
that
text
which
he
citeth
.
Lastlie
Sir
Humfrey
alledgeth
the
testimonies
of
diuerse
Romanists
which
hee
calleth
the
confession
of
his
aduersaries
,
that
priuate
Masse
was
altogether
vnknowne
to
the
primatiue
Church
.
But
I
answer
that
when
the
knight
cited
those
authours
he
ought
to
haue
remembred
what
hee
was
to
proue
according
to
the
Irish
article
which
he
vndertaketh
to
defend
and
according
to
his
owne
position
viz.
That
priuate
Masse
is
contrarie
to
Christs
institution
,
and
vnlawfull
,
and
to
be
abrogated
.
This
then
he
ought
to
haue
proued
if
he
ment
to
proue
anie
thing
against
the
Roman
doctrine
.
But
in
steede
of
this
which
he
will
neuer
be
able
to
proue
,
he
proueth
at
the
most
by
the
foresaid
testimonies
,
onelie
that
which
the
Romanists
,
doe
not
denie
,
to
wit
that
the
primatiue
Church
did
practice
the
administration
of
the
Eucharist
to
those
that
were
present
,
but
he
proueth
not
that
either
that
Church
did
soe
in
all
occasions
,
nor
that
she
held
it
necessarie
by
virtue
of
anie
lawe
,
or
institution
of
Christ
,
and
so
he
laboureth
in
vaine
as
well
in
this
as
he
hath
done
in
other
proofes
often
times
before
.
Neither
is
this
present
point
of
Controuersie
betwene
vs
and
the
reformers
about
the
auncient
custome
of
the
primatiue
Church
concerning
the
communion
of
the
people
present
at
the
Liturgie
,
but
whether
it
is
contrarie
to
Christs
institution
or
commaunde
to
celebrate
priuate
masses
?
the
affirmatiue
of
which
question
excepting
Cassander
(
whome
I
haue
alreadie
aduertised
the
reader
to
be
no
Romanist
)
nay
nor
yet
Cassander
himselfe
nor
anie
one
of
the
cited
testimonies
doth
proue
.
Nay
there
is
not
one
worde
in
anie
of
the
places
cited
touching
anie
such
doctrine
or
precept
of
the
Primatiue
Church
but
onelie
mention
is
made
of
the
fact
of
auncient
Christians
in
that
particular
,
with
an
addition
of
their
owne
verdit
as
houlding
it
for
more
profitable
to
the
receiuers
to
communicate
at
euerie
Masse
,
if
their
deuotion
were
so
much
extended
as
in
those
more
feruorous
times
of
the
primatiue
spirit
it
appeeres
to
haue
bene
.
And
although
not
onelie
all
or
most
of
the
authours
rehearsed
,
but
also
the
Councell
of
Trent
itselfe
doth
hould
the
foresaid
practice
of
the
auncient
Church
to
be
more
fruitefull
for
the
Laytie
then
the
custome
of
more
moderne
ages
:
yet
doth
Sir
Humfrey
most
absurdelie
hence
inferre
either
the
noueltie
of
the
Roman
doctrine
,
or
the
antiquitie
of
his
owne
.
For
that
as
we
haue
showed
alreadie
neither
in
anie
of
the
cited
authours
nor
in
the
Councell
of
Trent
it selfe
,
as
their
wordes
doe
witnesse
,
is
there
anie
mention
of
doctrine
or
precept
of
the
Primatiue
Church
but
onelie
of
her
fact
and
practice
,
from
whence
also
may
most
easilie
appeere
the
greate
impertinencie
of
a
further
illation
which
the
knight
doth
make
concluding
the
greater
fruitfulnes
of
his
owne
communion
then
of
ours
,
whereas
indeede
his
being
no
true
communion
at
all
,
as
not
containing
that
which
according
to
the
institution
of
Christ
ought
truelie
and
reallie
to
be
in
it
,
and
so
communicated
truelie
and
reallie
to
the
people
,
and
not
by
figure
and
faith
onelie
,
I
meane
the
bodie
and
bloud
of
Christ
,
certaine
it
is
that
no
such
inference
can
be
made
out
of
anie
comparison
made
betwene
the
Catholike
communion
and
his
owne
,
in
regard
there
is
no
true
paritie
or
similitude
to
be
founde
in
them
:
and
moreouer
it
is
so
farre
from
being
confessed
by
the
cited
authours
that
the
communion
of
the
reformers
is
more
fruitfull
then
their
owne
,
that
they
teach
expresselie
that
according
to
the
doctrine
of
the
reformed
Churches
touching
the
reall
presence
,
the
receiuers
of
their
Sacrament
can
receiue
no
fruite
at
all
.
And
now
let
this
suffice
for
anser
to
those
authours
In
generall
:
Yet
because
it
may
be
my
aduersarie
will
not
be
satisfied
with
this
generall
anser
alone
,
as
also
because
I
finde
he
hath
vsed
not
a
little
of
his
vsuall
proceeding
in
want
of
fidelitie
in
the
citation
of
the
authours
,
I
ame
content
to
descend
to
particulars
,
and
examen
them
in
order
.
The
first
the
knight
cites
,
is
Cochlaeus
out
of
Cassander
,
but
neither
he
nor
Cassander
haue
anie
thing
in
that
place
against
priuate
Masse
,
but
onelie
testifie
what
the
custome
of
the
auncient
Church
was
,
which
,
as
I
haue
alreadie
declared
,
is
impertinent
to
this
purpose
.
Besides
Sir
Humfrey
translates
Cochleus
wordes
corruptedlie
,
for
he
doth
not
say
that
the
holie
Goste
hath
thought
vs
a
remedie
against
the
slouthfulnes
of
the
Preists
in
celebrating
of
priuate
Masse
,
but
he
saith
,
the
holie
Ghost
hath
inuented
and
introduced
a
pious
supplie
of
this
negligence
by
the
frequentation
of
such
Masses
as
Preists
celebrate
alone
.
So
by
inuerting
the
wordes
,
the
malitious
knight
imposeth
vpon
the
Preists
onely
for
a
faulte
that
which
Cochleus
calles
a
remedie
prouided
by
the
holie
Gost
to
supplie
the
faulte
of
the
lesse
deuoute
sorte
of
people
as
well
as
the
defect
of
the
Preists
.
Which
defect
neuerthelesse
Chocleus
placeth
not
in
their
slouthfulnesse
in
celebrating
priuate
Masses
:
but
in
not
exhorting
the
laytie
to
communicate
at
euerie
Masse
,
as
his
wordes
sufficiently
declare
.
In
the
second
place
he
cites
Durand
mymatensis
who
as
speaking
onelie
of
the
custome
of
the
auncient
Church
and
consequentlie
not
against
the
Romanists
,
yet
he
corruptes
him
both
in
that
for
Domino
dicente
,
he
translates
;
according
to
Christs
commaunde
:
as
also
by
leauing
out
his
insuing
wordes
which
declare
the
reason
of
the
alteration
of
that
auncient
custome
.
Sed
excrescente
fidelium
multitudine
traditur
institutum
vt
tantum
Dominicis
diebus
communicarent
.
But
the
multitude
of
beleeuers
increasing
,
it
is
deliuered
vnto
vs
to
haue
beene
instituded
that
they
should
communicate
onelie
on
sundayes
.
Odo
vpon
the
Canon
doth
not
disproue
priuate
Masse
,
but
onelie
relates
the
different
customes
of
the
Church
in
different
times
.
Cum
primitus
missae
sine
collecta
non
fierent
,
postea
mos
inoleuit
Ecclesiae
solitarias
,
&
maxime
in
Caenobijs
,
fieri
missas
.
d.
2.
in
Can.
circa
init
.
The
same
I
say
of
Belethus
,
yet
Sir
Humfrey
omits
the
rest
of
his
wordes
.
As
he
did
in
the
testimonie
of
durand
.
Sed
propter
peccatum
circumstans
nos
,
statutum
est
vt
communicaremus
terin
anno
solum
.
But
by
reason
of
sinne
compassing
vs
about
(
saith
Hugo
)
it
was
determined
that
we
should
communicate
onelie
thrise
a
yeare
.
And
in
the
next
allegation
of
Tolosanus
who
sayth
no
other
then
the
rest
,
he
translates
mysterie
for
Masse
.
In
the
citation
of
Mycrologus
the
craftilie
omits
:
iuxta
antiquos
Canones
:
And
for
ante
oblationem
he
translates
before
communion
,
because
he
will
not
haue
his
reader
to
heare
that
either
the
communion
of
the
people
in
euerie
Masse
might
seeme
to
be
an
Ecclesiasticall
custome
or
lawe
onelie
,
or
that
there
is
anie
such
matter
as
oblation
in
the
celebration
of
diuine
seruice
,
for
that
they
themselues
haue
it
not
in
their
newe
Raphsodie
.
For
Cassanders
authoritie
we
do
not
care
.
And
yet
I
can
not
finde
in
Mycrologus
those
wordes
which
Cassander
and
Sir
Humfrey
alledge
out
of
him
,
to
wit
,
it
can
not
properlie
be
called
a
communion
except
some
besides
the
Preist
doe
communicate
.
How
be
it
the
same
Cassander
in
the
same
place
doth
not
condemne
priuate
Masses
for
a
Sacrilegious
action
,
or
to
be
prohibited
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
and
the
rest
of
the
Nouellists
commonlie
maintaine
:
But
onelie
playing
the
parte
of
a
Pacifyer
,
which
he
professeth
,
persuades
that
the
auncient
custome
may
be
restored
.
Nay
and
he
addes
further
and
that
truelie
,
that
the
Preists
say
when
they
celebrate
priuatelie
,
they
doe
not
participate
of
the
Sacrament
in
their
owne
priuate
name
,
but
in
the
name
of
the
Church
and
people
:
which
doubtlesse
in
reason
is
sufficient
to
make
it
a
true
communion
,
if
otherwise
it
were
not
.
And
as
for
Mycrologus
,
certaine
it
is
that
he
is
no
condemner
of
priuate
Masse
,
how
soeuer
he
might
esteeme
that
communion
lesse
proper
,
according
to
the
Etymon
of
the
worde
,
Innocentius
tertius
onelie
explicates
the
ancient
custome
of
the
Church
touching
the
communion
of
the
people
at
euetie
Masse
,
and
the
change
of
it
at
seuarall
times
and
by
degrees
.
And
surelie
if
we
consider
that
the
Nouelists
hould
this
Pope
for
one
of
their
greatest
opposites
in
doctrine
,
it
were
madnesses
to
imagin
that
he
should
in
anie
sorte
fauoure
their
tenets
.
And
because
I
reflected
that
Innocentius
as
being
a
Pope
had
no
reason
to
finde
anie
greater
fauour
at
Sir
Humfreys
hands
then
other
Romanists
haue
founde
,
vpon
vewe
of
the
place
I
discouered
that
he
had
falselie
translated
some
parte
of
Innocentius
wordes
,
which
make
against
him
to
wit
,
for
these
wordes
:
quia
nec
hoc
digne
potuit
obseruari
,
he
translates
:
by
reason
this
custome
was
neglected
,
whereas
he
should
haue
put
in
English
:
Because
neither
this
could
be
dignely
,
or
with
due
reuerence
obserued
:
By
which
false
translation
he
inuertes
the
true
cause
of
the
altetation
of
the
foresaid
custome
.
Hoffmeisterus
onelie
declares
the
publicitie
of
the
auncient
custome
with
a
desire
that
endeauours
may
be
vsed
for
the
restitution
of
it
,
with
whome
we
Romanists
all
ioyne
to
our
power
;
so
this
is
out
of
the
compasse
of
our
question
.
The
allegation
of
Doctour
Harding
who
speakes
much
to
the
same
purpose
,
I
haue
ansered
in
an
other
place
and
showed
the
deceite
of
the
relatour
,
altho'
in
this
place
I
finde
he
rehearses
his
wordes
truelie
,
by
reason
it
had
auailed
him
nothing
to
haue
here
abused
him
.
Iustinian
makes
no
mention
of
either
priuate
or
publike
Masses
but
onelie
of
the
participation
of
one
consecrated
bread
or
loafe
to
signifie
more
expresselie
the
vnion
of
charitie
,
which
is
not
to
this
purpose
:
as
neither
is
the
place
of
Bellarmin
following
lib.
2.
de
missa
cap.
9.
as
afterwardes
I
will
declare
.
But
to
returne
to
Doctour
Harding
,
it
is
true
I
find
Sir
Humfrey
cytes
him
towardes
the
end
of
the
same
paragraffe
out
of
Iewell
,
which
altho'
he
makes
nothing
for
the
proofe
of
his
intent
in
this
place
,
but
is
onelie
brought
in
vpon
the
by
to
enlarge
and
fournish
his
discourse
,
as
I
suppose
,
yet
doth
he
abuse
that
learned
diuine
in
that
he
leaueth
out
one
speciall
reason
which
he
alledges
why
the
primatiue
Catholikes
vsed
to
communicate
euerie
day
with
the
Preist
,
because
,
sayth
he
,
they
looking
hourelie
to
be
catched
&
put
to
death
by
the
Panimes
(
I
relate
the
sense
not
the
formall
wordes
)
should
not
departe
without
the
viaticum
.
Which
wordes
being
the
verie
harte
of
the
authours
sentence
,
Sir
Humfrey
verie
slylie
omits
it
,
as
if
it
were
not
to
the
purpose
,
and
by
that
meanes
he
most
deformedlie
couples
the
head
and
the
heeles
together
,
which
corruption
altho'
it
doth
not
much
auaile
him
,
yet
it
seemes
he
makes
a
recreation
of
that
arte
,
and
so
he
will
rather
playe
smale
game
then
sit
out
.
Lastelie
the
wordes
of
Iustinian
taken
out
of
his
Commentarie
vpon
1.
Cor
10.
are
impertinent
,
for
he
does
not
affirme
that
the
Communion
directlie
was
giuen
to
all
that
were
present
,
as
his
wordes
cited
by
the
knight
doe
testifie
,
which
authour
being
the
laste
which
he
cites
,
and
no
more
to
his
purpose
then
the
rest
,
let
this
suffice
for
the
censure
of
the
contents
of
this
whole
paragraffe
,
and
particularlie
for
the
confutation
of
that
aspersion
of
Noueltie
,
and
corruption
with
the
knight
doth
indeuore
calumniouslie
to
cast
vpon
the
Roman
Creede
,
it
nowe
being
plainelie
cleered
and
iustified
by
that
which
hath
beene
said
,
and
he
himselfe
conuinced
of
false
dealing
and
forgerie
.
The
paragraffe
insueing
is
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
.
And
to
be
plaine
with
Sir
Humfrey
,
I
say
that
in
the
verie
entrance
of
his
treatie
he
telleth
a
plaine
lie
to
his
reader
,
affirming
the
Romanists
to
relie
wholie
vpon
the
Councell
of
Trent
in
this
pointe
.
For
this
Councell
expresselie
hath
in
the
margent
of
the
decree
of
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
,
the
Councell
of
Florence
,
and
in
the
decrees
of
euerie
seuerall
Sacrament
there
is
reference
to
scriptures
,
Councels
and
Fathers
,
as
the
margines
doe
testifie
.
Wherefore
thus
the
knight
beginneth
,
and
how
he
will
proceed
I
know
not
,
but
yet
for
the
most
parte
an
ill
beginning
makes
an
ill
ending
.
First
he
reprehendeth
Bellarmin
for
saying
that
the
authoritie
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
if
there
were
no
other
ought
to
suffice
for
proofe
of
the
septinarie
number
of
the
Sacraments
.
But
he
might
with
farre
greater
reason
haue
reprehend
both
his
owne
temeritie
and
the
presumption
of
the
reformed
Churches
.
Which
without
anie
such
authoritie
as
the
Councell
of
Trent
hath
,
doe
denie
the
foresaid
number
of
Sacraments
.
Besides
that
Bellarmins
meaning
is
not
that
the
Councell
of
Trent
hath
sufficient
authoritie
to
define
the
same
without
foundation
of
the
worde
of
God
,
or
without
scripture
as
it
seemes
Sir
Humfrey
falselie
supposeth
,
but
that
supposing
such
a
foundation
,
it
hath
infallible
power
to
declare
the
same
as
conformeable
to
trueth
&
to
the
auncient
doctrine
and
practise
of
the
Church
in
former
ages
,
and
consequentlie
as
a
matter
of
faith
.
And
certainelie
that
Church
which
hath
not
this
authoritie
is
no
true
Church
nor
such
an
one
as
is
described
in
the
scriptures
,
but
a
meere
conuenticle
or
Scismaticall
congregation
vnsuteable
to
the
worde
of
God
.
And
whereas
it
seemes
straunge
to
Sir
Humfrey
that
according
to
Bellarmine
,
one
testimonie
of
a
late
Councell
might
suffice
for
the
establishing
of
an
article
of
faith
for
that
by
his
owne
tenet
such
an
article
requires
both
antiquitie
,
vniuersalitie
and
consent
:
let
him
but
truelie
and
sincerelie
consider
what
Bellarmines
meaning
is
,
and
he
will
presentlie
cease
to
maruell
at
his
position
.
He
must
therefore
know
that
whereas
Bellarmin
affirmeth
that
the
Councell
of
Trent
alone
might
bee
sufficient
to
declare
vnto
the
whole
Church
as
an
infallible
trueth
that
the
number
of
Sacraments
properlie
and
truelie
so
called
is
no
more
nor
lesse
then
seauen
,
his
meaning
is
that
because
the
foresaid
Councell
is
of
as
greate
authoritie
as
other
generall
Councells
euer
haue
had
in
times
past
,
it
ought
to
haue
the
same
credit
in
the
present
Church
touching
those
points
which
it
hath
defined
,
that
they
had
in
the
Church
of
their
times
in
such
matters
as
they
then
defined
,
and
consequentlie
that
as
those
points
of
doctrine
which
notwithstanding
they
had
beene
doubtfull
before
,
were
neuerthelesse
by
the
same
Councels
determined
as
certaine
and
infallible
doctrine
of
faith
without
anie
defect
of
antiquitie
vniuersalitie
,
or
consent
,
&
in
such
manner
as
all
the
whole
Christian
world
was
bound
vnder
paine
of
damnation
to
beleeue
it
,
as
is
manifest
in
the
consubstantiallitie
of
the
second
person
definde
in
the
Councell
of
Nice
,
the
diuinitie
of
the
third
person
in
the
first
Councell
of
Constantinople
,
the
vnitie
of
the
person
of
Christ
in
the
Ephesin
,
and
the
duplicitie
or
distinction
of
his
natures
in
the
Councell
of
Calcedon
,
as
also
the
duplicitie
or
distinction
of
his
wills
in
the
sixt
Councell
celebrated
at
Constantinople
:
so
in
like
manner
ought
the
present
Church
to
doe
with
the
Councell
of
Trent
in
all
it
definitions
,
and
particularlie
in
the
definition
of
the
number
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
,
which
definition
ought
to
be
held
for
certaine
as
well
as
the
former
determinations
of
the
foresaid
Councels
,
both
in
respect
it
was
decreed
by
the
authoritie
of
the
same
succeeding
Church
by
which
those
definitions
were
made
,
as
also
in
regard
it
hath
antiquitie
,
vniuersalitie
,
and
consent
,
both
in
asmuch
as
it
is
deduced
from
the
scriptures
by
infallible
authoritie
,
and
also
for
that
we
doe
not
finde
anie
either
of
the
auncient
Fathers
,
or
moderne
diuines
to
haue
denied
the
Sacraments
to
be
seuen
in
number
,
or
affirmed
them
to
be
onelie
two
as
the
reformers
commonlie
teach
.
Now
for
the
second
reprehension
which
Sir
Humfrey
maketh
of
Bellarmin
for
saying
,
that
if
we
take
away
the
credit
of
the
present
Church
and
present
Councell
of
Trent
,
the
decrees
of
all
other
Councels
,
nay
euen
Christian
faith
it selfe
might
be
called
in
question
:
this
reprehension
I
say
is
as
friuolous
as
the
former
,
for
that
according
to
both
Bellarmines
supposition
and
the
trueth
itselfe
,
the
present
Roman
Church
and
Councell
of
Trent
,
being
of
the
same
authoritie
,
as
I
haue
aboue
declared
,
with
the
Church
and
Councels
of
more
auncient
times
,
and
also
it
being
euident
that
as
in
those
daies
diuerse
points
of
doctrine
haue
bene
called
in
question
by
the
heretikes
of
those
times
,
so
they
might
at
this
present
be
brought
againe
in
doubt
by
others
,
as
experience
itselfe
hath
taught
vs
both
euen
in
those
same
matters
which
in
former
times
haue
bene
definde
,
as
appeereth
by
the
heresie
of
the
new
Trinitarians
,
and
others
:
as
also
in
other
truethes
which
as
yet
were
euer
held
in
the
Church
for
certaine
,
all
this
I
say
being
most
apparantlie
true
and
out
of
all
manner
of
doubt
among
the
learned
sorte
of
people
;
doubtlesse
if
,
as
Bellarmine
saith
,
we
take
awaie
the
credit
of
the
present
Church
and
present
Councell
of
Trent
,
or
others
which
heereafter
may
be
assembled
,
there
will
be
no
power
lefte
whereby
to
suppresse
such
new
oppinions
,
and
errours
,
as
by
heretikes
in
diuers
times
and
occasions
may
be
broached
contrarie
to
the
Christian
faith
as
well
concerning
matters
alreadie
determined
in
former
Councells
,
as
also
touching
such
new
doctrine
as
may
hereafter
be
inuented
by
other
sectaries
,
of
which
we
haue
too
much
experience
in
the
Nouellists
of
these
our
dayes
who
call
in
question
diuers
points
defined
in
former
Synods
,
of
which
we
haue
instances
in
the
doctrine
of
the
distinction
of
the
diuine
persons
questioned
by
the
new
Trinitarians
,
of
the
doctrine
aboute
the
lawfull
vse
and
honour
of
images
defined
in
the
7.
Generall
Councell
the
doctrine
of
transubstantiation
in
the
Councell
of
Lateran
.
The
number
of
the
Sacraments
and
the
like
reiected
euen
by
Sir
Humfrey
him selfe
and
his
fellowes
:
and
consequentlie
that
which
Bellarmine
affirmeth
in
this
sense
is
most
plaine
and
certaine
and
so
farre
from
Atheisme
,
as
the
contrarie
is
from
trueth
it selfe
.
And
if
Bellarmine
be
reprehensible
for
equalizing
the
present
Church
and
Councells
with
those
of
auncient
times
,
suerlie
the
reformers
themselues
are
farre
more
faultie
and
guiltie
in
this
kinde
,
for
that
they
doe
not
equalize
but
also
preferre
the
authoritie
of
their
owne
present
Congregations
and
Parleaments
before
the
Church
and
Councells
of
farre
more
auncient
times
then
is
the
date
of
their
doctrine
and
religion
.
And
this
they
doe
not
onelie
in
these
points
of
doctrine
which
the
later
Councells
haue
determined
against
the
later
errours
of
Sectaries
,
as
the
knight
doth
odiouslie
sugiest
,
but
also
in
some
articles
of
most
auncient
faith
and
doctrine
,
as
is
manifestlie
apparant
in
the
pointe
of
the
reall
presente
,
iustification
,
and
the
like
.
And
as
for
the
reason
which
Sir
Humfrey
yeeldeth
against
the
authoritie
of
the
present
Church
,
alledging
that
the
worde
of
Christ
is
alone
sufficient
for
the
faith
of
all
beleeuing
Christians
;
this
reason
I
say
is
of
no
force
,
it
is
but
an
ould
song
of
the
Puritans
which
hath
beene
a
thousand
times
repeated
by
the
reformers
,
and
as
often
refuted
by
the
Romanists
.
And
who
denyes
but
that
the
worde
of
God
certainelie
knowen
for
such
,
&
truely
interpreted
,
and
declared
,
is
sufficient
for
the
faith
of
all
Christians
?
but
to
this
who
doth
not
also
knowe
that
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
is
necessarie
in
all
times
and
places
?
nay
whoe
doth
not
see
that
the
one
of
necessaritie
and
as
it
were
intrinsically
inuolueth
the
other
,
and
that
in
such
sorte
that
the
sectaries
by
excluding
the
infalible
authouritie
of
the
present
Church
from
the
sufficientie
of
the
scrpitures
doe
nothing
lesse
then
deny
that
parte
of
the
scripture
which
commendeth
vnto
vs
the
constant
and
perpetually
successiue
authority
of
the
Church
till
the
confommation
of
the
worlde
.
And
if
Sir
Humfrey
had
considered
the
reason
which
Bellarmin
yeeldes
,
surely
he
could
not
so
much
haue
marauiled
that
he
giues
so
great
authority
to
the
councell
of
Trent
,
and
present
Church
,
for
saith
hee
,
if
we
take
that
away
we
haue
no
infallible
testimonie
that
the
former
Councells
were
euer
extant
&
that
they
were
legitimate
and
that
they
defined
this
or
that
point
of
doctrine
&c.
for
the
mention
which
historians
make
of
those
councells
is
but
a
humane
testimonie
subiect
to
falsitie
,
thus
Bell.
all
which
discourse
of
his
because
he
might
haue
more
colour
to
complaine
of
him
,
and
the
the
Roman
Church
,
the
insyncere
knight
resolued
to
keep
it
from
the
eyes
of
his
reader
.
True
it
is
that
the
reformers
out
of
their
greate
purenesse
or
rather
out
of
their
pure
madnesse
,
doe
vsually
exclaime
against
the
supposed
superstitions
of
the
Roman
Church
,
but
the
Romanists
may
farre
more
iustly
complaine
of
them
in
the
same
kinde
,
in
regarde
that
,
superstition
is
noething
els
addording
to
the
etimologie
of
the
worde
,
but
superfluous
religion
,
and
to
tie
the
worde
of
God
to
the
precise
written
caracter
alone
,
in
my
conceipt
,
is
the
highest
degree
of
superstition
that
can
be
imagined
,
because
these
precisians
by
that
meanes
doe
so
excessiuelie
,
and
superfluously
extoll
the
writen
worde
,
that
by
their
exclusiue
hiperbole
of
the
sufficiencie
of
it
alone
,
they
renounce
all
other
sortes
of
worde
of
God
,
either
preached
or
otherwise
deliuered
to
the
Church
,
either
in
plaine
tearmes
or
at
the
least
by
necessarie
sequelle
,
which
is
noething
els
but
out
of
a
superfluous
precisenes
,
to
assigne
limits
to
that
which
is
illimitable
,
and
boundes
to
that
which
is
infinite
,
and
consequently
out
of
a
superstitious
zeale
of
religion
to
destroyall
true
religion
,
and
the
true
worde
of
God
it selfe
.
Furthermore
for
the
sufficiencie
of
the
written
worde
preciselie
,
the
knight
citeth
the
Apostle
S.
Paule
act.
20.
vers.
27.
were
he
saith
so
:
I
haue
not
shunned
to
declare
vnto
you
all
the
councell
of
God
.
but
this
is
so
impertinentlie
alledged
that
it
needes
no
answer
:
it
being
manifest
that
the
Apostle
neither
speaketh
of
scripture
alone
,
nor
intendeth
to
exclude
other
partes
of
the
worde
of
God
,
nor
yet
so
to
limit
that
which
he
himselfe
writ
or
spoake
as
if
he
had
deliuered
in
writing
all
the
doctrine
with
out
exception
which
is
any
waie
necessarie
to
the
saluation
of
euerie
mans
soule
both
in
generall
and
in
particular
.
Otherwise
it
would
follow
that
all
which
the
rest
of
the
sacred
writers
haue
published
in
the
scriptures
were
superfluous
and
no
way
necessarie
to
haue
beene
penned
.
Besides
that
S.
Paule
in
the
place
cited
,
saith
not
that
he
hath
written
,
but
onely
that
he
hath
declared
vnto
them
all
the
councell
of
God
,
and
so
he
neither
in
wordes
nor
sense
fauoureth
the
reformers
tenet
of
the
all
sufciencie
of
the
written
worde
but
rather
Sir
Humfrey
is
here
to
be
noted
for
a
corruptor
of
the
text
.
And
no
lesse
idlely
doth
the
knight
cite
for
the
same
purpose
the
testimonie
of
Bellarm.
his
meaning
being
so
farre
from
this
matter
as
that
if
hee
were
not
his
aeuersarie
as
he
is
most
plainelie
euen
in
this
point
,
yet
had
it
beene
meere
madnesse
to
haue
as
much
as
named
him
in
this
darticular
,
and
so
perhaps
for
this
reason
onely
he
was
ashamed
to
quote
the
place
,
yet
as
comonly
he
doth
in
other
occasions
.
Finally
for
conclusion
of
his
disproofe
of
the
authoritie
of
the
present
Roman
Church
,
Sir
Humfrey
demaundeth
of
vs
how
the
faith
of
Christians
can
depend
vpon
a
Church
which
is
fallen
from
the
faith
,
or
generall
beliefe
of
Christianitie
can
rely
safely
vpon
a
councell
that
is
disclaimed
by
the
greatest
parte
of
the
world
.
By
England
by
France
by
Germany
?
But
to
this
I
answere
that
in
this
double
question
,
he
telleth
his
reader
at
the
least
a
double
lye
,
both
which
we
must
take
vpon
his
owne
credit
,
for
he
alledgeth
nothing
but
his
owne
worthie
word
,
which
of
how
little
worth
it
is
we
haue
sufficientlie
tryed
allreadie
.
Wherefore
we
must
with
his
leaue
tell
him
that
neither
it
is
true
that
the
Roman
Church
is
fallen
from
the
faith
,
except
he
meanes
from
the
faith
of
Luther
and
Caluin
,
or
from
his
owne
English
faith
,
from
which
neuerthelesse
the
Roman
Church
cannot
truelie
be
affirmed
to
haue
fallen
,
but
it
from
her
,
she
hauing
beene
in
the
world
manie
hundrethes
of
yeares
before
the
authours
of
the
new
Religion
were
created
:
nor
is
it
true
that
the
Tridentine
Councell
is
disclaimed
by
the
greater
parte
of
France
and
Germanie
at
this
present
time
in
matters
of
faith
.
To
saie
nothing
of
Italie
,
Spaine
,
Poland
,
Hungarie
;
and
those
most
vast
and
spatious
Indian
Regions
of
later
yeeres
reduced
to
the
Roman
faith
,
all
with
nations
doe
conteine
a
farre
greater
number
of
such
as
imbrace
the
foresaid
Councell
then
there
are
reformers
in
the
world
who
reiect
the
same
.
Especiallie
considering
that
euen
amongst
the
reformed
Churches
themselues
notwithstanding
the
most
rigorous
lawes
&
proceedings
which
they
vse
against
the
Roman
Catholikes
where
they
haue
the
superioritie
of
power
,
yet
is
there
no
smale
number
to
be
founde
of
those
who
willinglie
receiue
all
the
doctrine
of
faith
,
conteyned
in
the
Tridentine
Sinod
:
and
consequentlie
it
appeeres
by
this
that
Sir
Humfrey
hath
failed
mightilie
in
his
Cosmographie
and
calculation
,
when
he
affirmeth
that
the
foresaid
Councell
is
disclaimed
by
the
greatest
parte
of
the
world
;
except
in
his
greatest
parte
he
includes
Iewes
,
Turkes
and
Gentiles
,
or
at
the
least
count
for
his
owne
,
all
those
which
are
not
Romanists
of
what
sect
or
faction
soeuer
they
be
,
as
some
of
his
reformed
brothers
vse
to
doe
not
excluding
the
most
vnchristian
heretikes
the
Arians
out
of
the
number
of
the
members
of
their
Congregation
,
to
make
it
showe
more
ample
and
glorious
.
After
this
the
knight
out
of
the
vehemencie
of
his
zealous
Spirit
,
falls
into
a
fearefull
execration
taking
vpon
him
the
Anathema
if
anie
man
aliue
shall
proue
that
the
seuen
Trent
Sacraments
were
instituted
by
Christ
,
or
that
all
the
Fathers
,
or
anie
one
Father
in
the
Primatiue
Church
,
or
anie
knowne
authour
for
aboute
a
thousand
yeeres
after
Christ
,
did
teach
that
there
were
neither
more
nor
lesse
then
seuen
Sacraments
truelie
and
properlie
so
called
,
and
to
be
beleeued
of
all
for
an
article
of
faith
.
Thus
hee
▪
with
so
manie
turnings
and
windinges
as
you
see
,
and
so
manie
limitations
of
his
speech
,
that
a
man
would
thinke
it
vnpossible
but
that
he
might
escape
the
snare
of
his
owne
conditional
cursse
,
which
yet
he
doth
not
,
but
rather
falleth
flatte
into
it
,
as
I
will
presentlie
shewe
.
And
first
I
say
that
if
Sir
Humfrey
would
content
himselfe
with
the
authoritie
or
testimonie
of
dead
men
,
I
could
remitte
him
not
to
one
but
to
one
hundreth
authours
who
yet
aliue
in
their
workes
doe
testifie
the
foresaid
institution
in
plaine
tearmes
,
to
witt
all
those
diuines
who
liued
and
writ
euer
since
the
time
of
Petrus
Lombardus
,
of
whom
as
from
their
common
master
they
receaued
the
doctrine
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
as
successiuelie
deduced
from
the
institution
of
God
,
and
deliuered
it
to
their
successours
with
greate
vniformitie
and
consent
,
as
appeereth
by
their
bookes
.
And
altho'
this
might
be
sufficient
to
satisfie
anie
reasonable
person
in
the
world
,
neuerthelesse
because
Sir
Humfreys
importunitie
is
so
greate
that
he
will
needes
haue
the
testimonies
of
liue
authours
,
I
remitte
him
to
all
those
who
either
in
the
publike
vniuersities
or
pulpits
of
all
Catholike
countries
doe
teach
and
preach
the
same
at
this
daie
to
witt
that
not
onelie
a
thousand
yeeres
after
Christ
,
but
euen
from
the
time
of
Christ
himselfe
or
at
the
least
from
the
time
of
his
Apostles
preaching
and
writing
,
there
were
neither
more
nor
lesse
,
then
seuen
Sacraments
truelie
and
properlie
so
called
and
to
be
beleeued
of
all
for
an
article
of
faith
as
instituted
by
Christ
.
The
number
of
which
authours
being
not
onelie
verie
greate
in
itselfe
,
but
also
farre
greater
and
of
farre
more
learned
men
then
all
those
who
in
the
reformed
Churches
hould
the
contrarie
as
I
persuade
my selfe
Sir
Humfrey
cannot
denie
:
it
is
most
euident
that
(
to
saie
nothing
of
those
auncient
writers
which
by
their
proofes
of
euerie
particular
Sacrament
by
Scriptures
and
Fathes
doe
plainelie
wittnesse
the
same
trueth
)
he
had
no
reason
at
all
for
this
parte
of
his
greate
demaunded
.
And
now
touching
the
rest
of
it
,
I
answer
first
that
as
it
is
certaine
the
reformers
themselues
if
we
should
demaunde
the
like
of
them
concerning
the
number
of
those
Sacraments
which
they
defend
for
truely
&
properly
such
,
&
to
be
belieued
as
an
article
of
faith
and
as
instituted
by
Christ
,
cannot
prooue
either
by
scripture
or
any
one
authour
,
I
doe
not
say
for
about
a
Thousand
yeeres
as
they
doe
,
but
for
a
Thousand
and
foure
hundreth
yeeres
after
Christ
,
that
they
are
precisely
twoe
and
no
more
nor
lesse
:
so
consequentie
they
ought
not
to
require
of
vs
that
which
they
themselues
are
not
able
to
performe
in
their
owne
cause
and
case
.
Neuerthelesse
that
our
aduersarie
may
plainely
see
we
are
not
behinde
with
him
,
but
rather
farre
before
him
and
the
rest
of
his
brothers
in
this
particular
,
I
answer
farther
that
all
those
Fathers
who
by
expresse
places
of
scripture
proue
euerie
one
of
those
Sacraments
in
particular
,
and
no
other
,
which
the
Roman
Church
houldeth
for
truely
&
properlie
such
,
doe
thereby
also
shew
at
the
least
tacitly
,
that
those
and
no
more
nor
lesse
are
beleeued
for
such
by
faith
.
For
testimonie
of
which
trueth
because
it
would
be
too
tedious
in
answere
of
one
argument
to
produce
so
many
of
the
Fathers
as
might
be
alledged
,
I
will
onely
alledge
.
Wherefore
that
confirmation
is
truely
and
properlie
a
Sacrament
S.
Augustine
affirmeth
lib.
2.
contra
lit
.
Pet.
cap.
104.
where
he
saith
thus
.
The
Sacrament
of
Chrisme
in
the
nature
of
visible
signes
,
Sacrosanctum
est
,
is
a
sacred
and
holy
Sacrament
as
Baptisme
;
and
he
hath
the
like
of
order
lib.
2.
cont.
Epist.
Parm.
cap.
13.
sayinh
.
They
are
both
Sacraments
,
and
both
by
a
certaine
consecration
are
giuen
to
man
,
that
when
he
is
baptzed
,
this
when
he
is
ordered
and
in
the
same
place
he
also
saith
,
that
both
of
them
be
Sacraments
which
no
man
doubteth
.
Of
Pennance
he
saith
lib.
1.
de
adult
.
coniug
.
cap.
26.
&
28.
eadem
est
causa
Baptismi
&
reconciliations
,
fine
quibus
Sacramentis
homines
credunt
se
mori
non
debere
.
The
same
cause
or
reason
is
of
Baptisme
and
Reconciliation
with
out
which
Sacraments
men
beleeue
they
ought
not
to
dye
.
Matrimonie
he
compareth
with
Baptisme
lib.
1.
de
nuptijs
&
concup
.
cap.
10.
where
he
saith
that
the
matter
of
this
Sacrament
is
,
that
man
and
woman
ioyned
in
mariage
may
inseperably
perseuer
together
as
long
as
they
liue
.
And
the
like
saying
he
hath
of
the
perpetuall
effect
of
this
Sacrament
comparing
it
with
the
perpetuall
effect
of
Baptisme
.
And
in
the
14.
chapter
of
his
booke
de
bono
coniugali
,
he
compareth
matrimonie
with
the
Sacrament
of
Order
,
which
order
as
we
haue
cited
before
,
he
compared
with
Baptisme
in
another
place
.
Finally
of
Extreame
vnction
he
maketh
mention
lib.
2.
de
visit
.
infir
.
cap.
4.
and
in
his
215.
Sermon
of
the
saints
.
Where
although
he
doth
not
in
expresse
tearmes
affirme
extreame
vnction
to
to
be
one
of
the
Sacraments
,
yet
he
expressely
affirmeth
there
,
and
serm.
de
temp.
115.
that
the
ceremonie
of
vnction
which
S.
Iames
mentioneth
,
and
the
promisse
,
belong
vnto
the
faithfull
,
and
are
to
be
practized
by
the
Priests
as
the
Apostle
commaundes
:
all
which
proues
plainily
that
S.
Augustin
held
it
for
a
Sacrament
as
well
as
the
other
six
,
and
altho'
some
doubt
may
be
made
whether
the
booke
de
visit
.
infir
.
be
truelie
S.
Augustines
worke
,
yet
certaine
it
is
that
the
authour
of
it
is
both
good
and
auncient
.
And
thus
much
out
of
S.
Augustine
for
the
proofe
of
euerie
one
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
in
particular
,
besides
that
which
he
speaketh
in
generall
of
them
,
and
of
the
benefit
which
the
Church
hath
receaued
from
God
by
the
institution
of
them
,
in
his
first
sermon
vpon
the
108.
psalme
,
where
he
saith
thus
.
What
a
greate
gift
is
the
office
of
the
administration
of
the
Sacraments
in
Baptisme
,
Eucharist
,
and
in
the
rest
of
the
holy
Sacraments
?
so
that
we
see
that
S.
Augustin
stanneth
plainely
against
the
doctrine
of
Sir
Humfrey
.
And
doth
fully
answer
his
question
touching
the
number
of
the
Sacraments
defended
by
the
Roman
Church
.
And
supposing
he
makes
soe
speciall
mention
of
these
seuen
as
he
doth
more
then
of
any
other
externall
signe
or
ceremonie
of
the
Church
(
to
some
of
which
neuertheles
he
giueth
also
the
name
of
Sacrament
)
and
supposing
also
he
compareth
or
all
most
of
them
with
those
two
which
the
reformers
themselues
hould
for
proper
and
true
Sacraments
,
in
their
effects
and
sanctitie
,
as
also
amplifying
the
benefit
which
God
hath
conferred
to
the
Church
by
the
institution
of
them
(
that
which
he
doth
not
with
the
rest
of
the
holie
signes
and
ceremonies
which
the
same
Church
also
vseth
)
supposing
all
these
circumstances
I
saie
,
it
is
more
then
certaine
that
he
speaketh
of
them
as
of
true
and
proper
Sacramants
which
for
such
haue
beene
recreaued
and
belieued
in
the
vniuersall
Church
euen
euer
since
the
time
of
Christ
the
institutour
of
them
.
And
so
let
this
suffice
for
an
answere
of
that
vast
demande
of
our
Thrasonian
knight
,
and
to
demonstrate
,
that
notwithstanding
all
his
circumspection
,
his
owne
conditionall
curse
is
turned
into
an
absolute
,
and
so
is
fallen
vpon
him
with
all
it
weight
and
forces
as
a
iust
punishment
of
the
temeritie
and
excesse
of
that
boldnes
,
which
he
committeth
in
protesting
,
against
a
truth
confirmed
with
such
authoritie
and
testimonie
as
may
satisfie
the
most
tender
conscience
and
settle
the
most
wauering
minde
in
the
world
.
And
yet
for
confirmation
of
the
foresaid
answere
,
we
may
further
adde
,
that
supposing
the
Master
of
Sentences
so
manie
yeeres
past
defended
the
seauen
Sacraments
with
the
institution
of
them
by
Christ
himselfe
and
their
necessitie
and
profit
in
the
Church
of
God
:
and
supposing
the
same
authour
writ
nothing
but
what
he
found
in
the
auncient
Fathers
,
from
the
collection
of
whose
sentences
he
tooke
his
appellation
:
supposing
I
say
all
this
which
his
workes
doe
witnesse
,
it
is
most
apparent
in
the
morall
iudgment
of
anie
indifferent
man
,
that
the
doctrine
which
he
deliuered
concerning
the
foresaid
number
of
Sacraments
,
was
no
other
then
the
faith
of
the
vniuersall
Church
&
also
the
verie
same
which
by
the
generall
consent
of
schoole
diuines
in
later
ages
hath
binne
taught
&
preached
euen
by
those
of
the
Grecian
Church
,
as
by
the
testimonie
of
Hieremie
the
late
Patriarch
of
Constantinople
in
his
answer
to
the
Augustan
Confession
doth
plainelie
appeere
;
where
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
is
expresselie
maintained
against
the
Lutherans
as
his
wordes
here
quoted
in
the
margent
clearelie
testifie
with
shame
enuffe
to
the
reformed
brothers
:
for
thus
he
saith
.
But
the
knight
goeing
yet
further
in
the
proofe
of
his
duall
number
,
telleth
his
reader
,
that
the
two
Sacraments
which
his
Church
defends
are
properlie
Sacraments
because
they
haue
element
and
institution
:
but
the
other
fine
are
not
such
because
they
want
eyther
of
these
.
But
to
this
I
answere
that
the
fiue
Sacraments
which
the
reformers
reiect
,
haue
not
onelie
this
which
Sir
Humfrey
requires
to
his
two
defaced
Sacraments
,
but
also
besides
this
,
they
haue
promise
of
iustificant
grace
,
which
according
to
the
description
he
maketh
heere
,
his
two
doe
want
;
and
so
I
retort
his
prrofe
vpon
him
.
For
if
our
fiue
be
not
properlie
Sacraments
because
in
his
conceipt
they
want
institution
and
element
;
surelie
neither
are
his
two
properlie
Sacraments
because
they
want
grace
,
as
being
but
signes
or
elements
instituted
by
God
not
giuing
grace
both
according
to
his
former
declaration
,
If
thow
doest
aske
me
,
why
he
that
is
baptized
doth
not
receaue
the
holie
Ghost
but
by
the
hands
of
the
Bishop
,
learne
that
this
obseruation
descended
from
that
authoritie
that
after
the
ascension
of
our
Lord
the
Spirit
descended
vpon
the
Apostles
.
Secondlie
the
Sacrament
of
Penance
hath
both
element
and
institution
;
the
element
is
the
acts
of
the
penitent
declared
by
sensible
words
or
signes
,
the
institution
is
the
collation
of
power
conferred
by
Christ
to
remitte
sinnes
,
to
his
Apostles
and
in
them
to
all
true
Preistes
according
to
that
of
the
20.
of
Saint
Iohn
,
Receaue
yee
the
holie
Ghost
,
whole
sinnes
you
shall
forgiue
they
are
forgiuen
,
and
whose
sinnes
you
shall
retaine
they
are
retayued
.
In
which
words
both
the
institution
and
the
element
be
sufficientlie
declared
;
especiallie
if
we
ioyne
the
declaration
of
the
Church
,
without
which
euen
those
two
which
the
reformers
hould
for
Sacraments
cannot
be
conuinced
to
be
truly
and
properlie
such
,
if
one
were
obstinately
disposed
.
Thirdlie
in
the
Sacrament
of
Extreme
Vnction
both
the
element
and
institution
are
plainelie
enough
found
in
the
5.
chap.
of
S.
Iames
:
where
the
Apostle
sayth
.
If
anie
man
be
sick
among
you
,
let
him
bring
in
the
Priestes
of
the
Church
and
let
them
pray
ouer
him
annointing
him
with
oyle
in
the
name
of
our
Lord
,
and
the
prayer
of
faith
shall
saue
the
sick
,
and
our
Lord
shall
lift
him
vp
,
and
if
he
be
in
sinnes
they
shalbbe
remitted
him
.
In
which
place
to
the
externall
signes
of
prayer
and
oyle
,
remission
of
finnes
is
annexed
,
as
the
reader
may
plainelie
perceiue
:
which
effect
euen
according
to
the
doctrine
of
the
reformers
themselues
as
I
suppose
cannot
be
found
but
onelie
in
such
ceremonies
as
properlie
are
instituted
by
Christ
himselfe
for
Sacraments
.
Fourthlie
the
like
I
say
of
Order
,
the
substance
of
which
is
so
plainelie
conteyned
in
the
scriptures
,
Doe
not
neglect
the
grace
which
is
in
the
:
which
was
giuen
the
by
prophesie
with
the
imposition
of
the
hands
of
preisthood
.
In
the
second
place
the
wordes
are
these
.
For
which
cause
I
admonish
the
to
resuscitate
the
grace
of
God
which
is
in
the
by
the
imposition
of
my
handes
.
Now
lastlie
concerning
Matrimonie
,
a
man
might
iustlie
maruell
that
our
new
Euangelistes
should
make
anie
question
of
it
in
this
nature
.
For
supposing
their
extraordinarie
affection
that
way
,
and
that
single
life
is
so
vnsauourie
to
them
that
if
it
lay
in
their
power
,
they
would
rather
suffer
the
whole
quire
of
virgins
to
perish
,
then
they
would
make
a
religious
vowe
of
perpetuall
chastitie
,
or
liue
without
a
woman
:
supposing
this
I
say
in
my
opinion
they
ought
in
all
reason
sooner
to
haue
honoured
matrimonie
with
the
title
of
a
Sacrament
,
then
to
haue
quite
depriued
it
of
that
which
the
scripture
it selfe
doth
giue
it
.
Yet
supposing
they
be
so
preposterous
,
that
they
will
rather
impugne
that
which
they
otherwise
loue
best
,
then
seeme
to
agree
to
the
Romane
doctrine
,
I
tell
them
all
and
particularilie
him
with
whome
I
dispute
,
that
although
mariage
was
by
God
himselfe
onelie
ordayned
in
paradise
as
a
ciuill
contract
:
Neuerthelesse
Christe
who
came
not
to
dissolue
the
lawe
,
but
to
eleuate
it
to
a
higher
degree
of
perfection
;
amongst
other
things
he
pleased
to
honore
the
same
with
the
true
nature
and
properties
of
a
Sacrament
;
giuing
also
tho'
not
immediatlie
by
himselfe
,
yet
by
his
Apostle
S.
Paul
,
the
verie
name
and
title
of
a
Sacrament
;
whereas
notwithstanding
neyther
he
himselfe
nor
anie
of
his
Apostles
or
Euangelists
euer
gaue
that
name
to
anie
of
the
rest
of
the
Sacraments
.
Wherefore
to
come
nearer
to
the
purpose
;
I
say
that
the
institution
of
this
Sacrament
was
by
Christe
himselfe
,
who
in
the
19.
chapter
of
S.
Mathewe
ordayned
the
coniunction
of
man
&
wife
to
be
inseperable
to
the
end
it
so
might
be
a
sacred
signe
of
the
indissoluble
coniunction
of
Christe
and
his
Church
,
as
it
is
declared
by
the
Apostle
Ephes.
5.
where
he
expreslie
giueth
it
the
name
of
a
great
Sacrament
in
regard
of
the
sacred
coniunction
(
partelie
by
the
hypostaticall
vnion
,
and
partelie
by
the
vnion
of
charitie
)
betwixt
Christe
and
his
spouse
the
Church
which
it
signifieth
.
Which
foresaid
coniunction
of
man
and
wife
explicated
by
words
of
the
present
tense
is
the
element
;
and
Christs
ordinance
and
application
of
the
same
to
the
foresaid
signification
,
is
the
institution
,
by
virtue
of
which
it
also
conferreth
grace
to
the
receiuers
,
to
the
end
they
may
liue
in
that
perpetuall
vnion
of
mindes
which
is
required
to
the
representation
of
the
inseperable
vnion
of
Christe
and
his
Church
;
which
is
all
and
more
then
our
aduersarie
himselfe
demaunded
of
vs
before
in
this
particular
matter
.
To
which
if
we
adde
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
and
auncient
fathers
for
the
interptetation
of
those
scriptures
which
we
haue
produced
for
proofe
of
the
truth
of
this
,
and
the
rest
of
the
foresaid
fiue
Sacraments
(
which
authorities
of
the
fathers
if
need
required
and
the
place
did
serue
for
them
I
could
easilie
produce
)
it
would
yet
more
plainelie
appeere
with
how
little
reason
the
pretensiue
reformed
Congregations
doe
exclude
them
out
of
the
number
of
true
and
proper
Sacraments
.
And
so
now
according
to
this
a
verie
easie
answere
may
be
framed
to
all
that
which
the
knight
bringeth
against
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
in
the
rest
of
this
paragraph
,
and
particularilie
to
the
testimonies
of
those
Romane
authours
and
Fathers
which
he
produceth
in
fauour
of
his
cause
.
And
first
touching
the
Fathers
which
hee
citeth
besides
that
which
hath
binne
alreadie
spoken
I
further
adde
,
that
there
was
not
one
of
them
which
was
of
the
reformers
opinion
in
this
matter
as
is
most
apparent
in
that
Sir
Humfrey
himselfe
could
not
produce
so
much
as
one
Father
that
auerreth
the
onelie
duall
number
of
Sacraments
:
Nay
they
are
so
farre
from
this
,
that
there
is
not
one
of
them
,
who
doth
not
in
one
place
or
other
make
expresse
mention
of
more
then
two
,
if
professedlie
they
make
mention
of
anie
at
all
.
Secondlie
I
say
,
that
as
the
reformers
cannot
with
anie
probabilitie
inferre
out
of
those
Fathers
who
affirmed
that
the
two
Sacraments
Baptisme
and
the
Eucharist
haue
flowed
out
of
the
side
of
Christe
,
that
there
are
no
more
nor
lesse
then
two
;
so
neyther
can
they
in
anie
sort
thence
inferre
that
the
same
Fathers
taught
not
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
.
And
more
then
this
if
the
reformers
stand
vpon
this
so
much
that
the
Fathers
by
the
bloud
which
issued
out
of
our
Sauiours
side
,
vnderstood
the
Sacrament
of
the
bloud
of
Christe
,
then
they
must
consequentlie
eyther
confesse
that
the
same
Fathers
held
the
reall
presence
of
the
bloude
of
Christe
in
the
Eucharist
,
which
yet
they
themselues
denie
,
or
else
at
the
least
that
the
reformed
Churches
haue
no
true
Sacrament
at
all
,
for
that
according
to
their
confession
,
there
is
in
it
neyther
bloud
nor
bone
.
And
out
of
this
generall
answere
to
the
testimonies
of
the
auncient
Fathers
,
we
may
inferre
how
falselie
Sir
Humfrey
in
the
end
of
his
149.
page
affirmeth
,
that
they
did
insist
sometimes
in
the
number
of
two
and
so
restrayned
the
Church
to
the
definite
number
of
two
onelie
,
which
saying
of
his
is
a
manifest
falsitie
and
iniurious
to
those
Fathers
whome
he
so
chargeth
,
as
that
which
I
haue
produced
out
of
S.
Augustine
in
this
period
doth
plainelie
conuince
in
these
fiue
Sacraments
which
the
reformers
denie
:
Neyther
was
he
able
to
produce
one
testimonie
out
of
anie
of
them
for
proofe
of
his
fayned
position
;
but
so
leaueth
it
vnconfirmed
more
then
with
that
fame
vntruth
by
which
he
belyeth
most
impudentlie
the
foresaid
Fathers
all
at
a
clappe
.
Neyther
hath
that
which
he
further
addeth
of
the
same
Fathers
in
the
next
page
anie
greater
truth
or
foundation
then
this
,
where
he
sayth
that
had
the
Fathers
beleeued
that
those
fiue
Sacraments
had
binne
instituted
by
Christe
they
would
of
necessitie
haue
concluded
them
for
true
and
proper
Sacraments
,
and
haue
easilie
found
in
them
the
number
of
seuen
:
Thus
in
effect
Sir
Humfrey
discourseth
,
to
which
I
answere
first
that
doubtles
if
the
Fathers
had
had
but
halfe
the
occasion
which
the
Church
hath
had
since
their
time
,
and
especiallie
since
the
foundation
of
the
reformed
Churches
;
they
would
of
necessitie
haue
treated
and
spoken
expresselie
of
the
septenarie
number
,
and
haue
distinguished
as
now
the
Church
and
diuines
doe
betwixt
proper
and
improper
Sacraments
:
But
the
occasion
fayling
,
they
neyther
had
necessitie
nor
conueniencie
to
speake
otherwise
of
them
then
they
haue
donne
:
Nay
some
of
them
,
especiallie
those
who
writ
against
the
Gentiles
,
were
rather
obliged
by
the
course
of
those
times
,
not
to
mention
the
secret
misteries
of
our
faith
at
all
,
then
to
reueale
them
to
the
profaners
of
them
,
more
then
was
preciselie
necessarie
for
the
answere
of
their
obiections
,
Secondlie
I
say
,
that
howsoeuer
the
auncient
Fathers
spoke
of
the
expresse
number
of
the
Sacraments
,
certaine
it
is
,
they
eyther
expreslie
taught
,
or
at
the
least
supposed
for
certaine
doctrine
of
faith
that
all
those
which
the
Romane
Church
now
holdeth
for
true
and
proper
Sacraments
doe
giue
diuine
grace
to
the
receiuers
,
as
it
is
apparent
out
of
those
places
which
I
cited
before
out
of
Saint
Augustine
for
the
proofe
of
euerie
seuerall
Sacrament
and
their
seuerall
effects
;
and
consequentlie
they
held
implicitelie
at
the
least
,
and
if
either
necessitie
or
iuste
occasion
had
required
they
would
haue
concluded
expresselie
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
,
and
that
they
were
instituted
by
Christe
for
such
truely
and
properly
.
And
now
for
the
more
moderne
diuines
who
wrote
since
the
time
of
P.
Lumbard
,
of
which
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
to
the
number
of
twelue
or
thirteene
,
there
is
not
one
of
them
who
holdeth
onely
two
proper
Sacraments
as
the
reformers
doe
:
nay
there
is
not
one
of
them
that
doth
not
expreslie
defende
the
septenarie
number
of
true
and
proper
Sacraments
,
excepting
perhaps
Alexander
Hales
and
Durand
may
seeme
to
opinate
otherwise
to
the
incircūspect
reader
,
of
which
two
authours
neuerthelesse
I
say
first
that
Hales
doth
not
denie
all
those
seauen
,
nor
anie
one
of
them
in
particular
which
the
Romane
Church
defendes
to
be
trulie
and
properlie
Sacraments
,
but
he
onely
is
of
opinion
that
onelie
fower
of
them
are
to
be
called
Sacraments
of
the
new
lawe
,
for
that
as
he
imagined
the
other
three
,
to
wit
Pennance
,
Order
,
and
Matrimonie
,
had
their
beginning
before
.
True
it
is
,
Hales
cannot
be
excused
from
errour
in
that
he
affirmeth
Confirmation
to
haue
binne
instituted
by
the
Councell
of
Melda
(
except
he
meaneth
onelie
,
that
there
it
was
declared
to
be
properlie
a
Sacrament
as
I
am
persuaded
he
doth
)
but
neuerthelesse
supposing
this
his
singular
opinion
,
yet
notwithstanding
it
being
with
all
certayne
,
that
he
holdeth
the
same
Sacrament
to
be
one
of
the
seauen
no
lesse
then
he
doth
Pennance
which
yet
he
held
(
as
it
seemeth
to
some
later
writers
)
to
haue
binne
instituted
by
the
Apostles
,
According
to
the
number
of
spirituall
diseases
,
the
number
of
Sacraments
is
to
be
taken
,
there
are
seauen
differences
of
diseases
.
What
therefore
can
be
more
manithē
that
this
authour
tought
the
compleat
number
of
seuen
Sacraments
?
And
as
for
Durand
,
certaine
it
is
that
he
doth
not
denie
Matrimonie
to
be
a
Sacrament
absolutelie
as
the
reformers
doe
,
but
he
at
the
most
onely
affirmeth
that
it
is
not
properly
and
vniuocallie
a
Sacrament
conferring
grace
in
the
same
manner
the
other
six
doe
;
which
opinion
of
his
altho'
as
it
sounds
it
can
not
stand
firme
with
the
doctrine
of
the
Church
:
yet
this
not
our
question
,
and
in
case
it
were
,
yet
is
there
no
reason
why
one
mans
priuate
tenet
,
nay
nor
the
priuate
tenet
,
or
errour
of
more
then
one
or
two
should
preiudicate
the
common
doctrine
of
the
Church
both
before
and
after
him
,
nor
diminish
her
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
in
anie
point
of
doctrine
especiallie
where
there
is
no
obstinacie
in
the
authour
,
as
in
these
there
was
not
:
neyther
can
the
aduersaries
drawe
anie
argument
of
force
against
the
same
in
anie
case
,
out
of
one
onelie
authour
or
more
,
if
more
there
were
,
contrarie
to
the
torrent
of
all
the
rest
.
To
omit
that
as
vasques
noteth
,
the
same
Durand
in
the
same
place
expreslie
affirmeth
that
it
is
an
heresie
to
denie
that
Matrimonie
is
a
Sacrament
,
which
doubtlesse
is
a
concluding
argument
that
when
Durand
affirmed
Matrimonie
not
to
be
vniuocallie
or
iuste
as
the
rest
be
a
Sacrament
,
he
did
not
absolutely
deny
it
to
be
one
of
those
seuen
which
the
church
did
both
then
hold
,
&
now
houldeth
to
betrue
Sacraments
;
but
at
the
most
he
onely
denied
the
truth
&
propertie
of
it
in
that
strict
&
vniuocall
manner
of
conferring
iustificant
grace
,
as
he
and
other
diuines
affirme
of
the
rest
:
which
being
so
,
then
cannot
the
Reformers
haue
anie
colour
to
alledge
this
testimonie
either
against
the
absolute
truth
of
that
Sacrament
,
or
against
the
Septenarie
number
of
it
with
the
other
.
Nay
more
then
this
hauing
now
exactelie
examined
the
matter
I
finde
that
Durand
besides
that
he
expresselie
defendes
the
total
number
of
seuen
Sacraments
disputing
seuerallie
of
the
nature
of
euerie
one
of
them
,
he
doth
in
particular
affirme
of
Matrimonie
euen
in
his
resolution
or
direct
anser
to
the
question
,
absolutelie
that
it
is
a
Sacrament
;
and
puts
it
in
the
last
place
for
one
of
the
seuen
.
And
these
are
his
wordes
in
their
seuerall
places
noted
in
the
margent
.
To
which
if
we
adde
that
which
Capreolus
doth
testifie
of
the
same
durand
,
all
doubt
of
his
true
meaning
in
this
point
will
quite
vanish
away
.
in
his
last
worke
or
edition
he
was
constrained
to
speake
more
cautelously
soe
that
he
confessed
matoimonie
to
be
truely
and
properly
a
Sacrament
,
but
not
vniuocally
.
By
which
,
and
that
also
which
I
haue
said
before
touching
Alexander
Hales
the
learned
reader
may
perceiue
that
both
the
one
and
the
other
are
against
truth
and
reason
alledged
against
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
,
and
against
the
vniuersalitie
of
the
doctrine
of
the
Roman
Church
in
that
point
,
supposing
they
differ
not
from
the
rest
of
the
Romanists
as
their
owne
wordes
witnesse
,
Except
it
be
in
the
manner
of
defending
that
same
number
,
yet
both
agreeing
in
the
substance
of
the
Controuersie
here
proposed
by
the
knight
our
aduersarie
,
Moreouer
in
the
citation
of
the
other
moderne
diuines
,
Sir
Humfrey
vseth
much
fraud
and
cosenage
:
and
remitting
the
rest
till
afterwardes
which
I
will
examen
in
their
due
places
as
they
are
quoted
by
the
knight
,
I
will
first
produce
those
two
whose
bookes
I
had
at
the
first
,
and
both
of
whome
he
egregiouslie
abuseth
.
Bellarmin
is
corrupted
by
him
in
three
seuerall
places
cited
in
this
one
paragraph
.
And
first
he
is
corrupted
in
his
Second
booke
of
the
effect
of
Sacraments
chap
24.
where
the
Cardinall
saying
onelie
that
the
aduersaries
ought
not
to
require
of
the
Romanists
that
they
shewe
the
name
of
the
Septenarie
number
of
the
Sacraments
either
out
of
scripture
or
Fathers
;
the
number
of
seuen
for
the
name
of
the
number
of
seuen
,
repeating
the
same
twise
for
fayling
,
and
so
daceiues
his
ignorant
reader
persuading
him
there
by
that
euen
by
Bellarmins
confession
the
number
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
is
not
to
be
found
either
in
scriptures
or
Fathers
,
whereas
neuerthelesse
Bellarmin
saith
no
such
thing
,
but
onelie
that
the
name
of
the
foresaid
number
is
not
to
be
required
in
that
manner
supposing
that
the
substance
of
a
thing
is
oftentimes
found
both
in
scriptures
and
Fathers
,
and
yet
not
the
name
it selfe
,
as
appeares
in
the
worde
Trinitie
of
persons
,
and
in
the
name
of
the
number
of
two
Sacraments
,
neither
of
which
is
extant
in
scriptures
.
Secondlie
Bellarmin
is
corrupted
in
his
booke
of
Extreme
Vnction
cap.
2.
non
est
ita
notum
,
it
is
not
so
certaine
,
whereas
he
ought
to
haue
translated
,
it
is
not
so
knowne
:
The
sense
he
corrupteth
in
that
he
persuades
his
reader
that
Bellarmin
confesseth
that
the
foresaid
fiue
Sacraments
haue
not
their
institution
from
christ
immediatelie
:
whereas
he
speakes
not
a
worde
of
the
institurion
,
but
affirmes
onelie
that
the
sacred
things
which
the
Sacraments
signifie
are
three
;
iustifying
grace
,
the
passion
of
Christ
and
eternall
life
;
all
which
,
that
Baptisme
and
Eucharrst
doe
fignifie
saith
he
,
res
notissima
est
,
it
is
most
notorious
,
de
alijs
Sacramentis
non
est
ita
notum
,
of
the
rest
of
the
Sacraments
it
is
not
so
notorious
or
knowne
.
Yet
further
adding
that
it
is
certaine
that
euen
these
fiue
Sacraments
which
the
reformers
reiect
signifie
all
those
three
things
at
the
least
implicitlie
:
But
to
saie
that
the
foresaid
fiue
Sacraments
haue
not
their
institution
immediatelie
from
Christ
,
neuer
entred
in
to
Bellarmins
thoughts
.
Furthermore
Sir
Humfrey
also
corrupteth
vasquez
most
shamefullie
in
the
3.
parte
d.
2.
cap.
5.
n.
3.
de
Sacram.
Matr.
Where
he
impudentlie
belyeth
him
affirming
that
Vasquez
knewe
well
that
neither
moderne
diuines
nor
auncient
Fathers
did
conclude
Matrimonie
for
a
true
Sacrament
of
the
Church
.
And
yet
the
knight
could
not
be
ignorant
that
the
same
authour
professedlie
defendes
the
same
to
be
trulie
and
properlie
a
Sacrament
in
the
third
chapter
of
the
verie
same
disputation
which
he
himselfe
cites
:
and
in
his
4.
chap.
Vasquez
proueth
it
by
the
testimonies
of
diuers
Fathers
,
putting
for
parte
of
the
title
of
the
same
chap.
that
the
definition
of
the
Church
touching
the
truth
of
this
Sacrament
had
foundation
in
the
testimonies
of
the
Fathers
,
and
who
will
please
to
read
vasquez
will
finde
it
so
.
In
so
much
that
Sir
Humfrey
in
this
particular
is
wholelie
inexcusable
,
especiallie
considering
that
out
of
the
place
cited
nothing
can
possiblie
be
collected
or
inferred
wherebie
it
may
in
anie
sorte
be
imagined
that
vasquez
euer
dreamed
that
either
auncient
Fathers
or
moderne
diuines
(
excepting
durand
and
perhaps
the
Master
of
Sentences
of
whome
he
speakes
doubtfullie
,
not
daring
to
affirme
him
absolutelie
to
haue
beene
of
the
same
opinion
with
Durand
,
as
in
truth
he
is
not
)
did
conclude
matrimonie
not
to
be
a
true
and
proper
Sacrament
,
but
onelie
affirmes
that
none
of
the
places
which
diuines
alledge
out
of
S.
Augustin
to
proue
the
truth
and
propertie
of
that
Sacrament
,
conuince
the
same
in
the
sense
in
which
(
saith
Vasquez
)
we
now
dispute
.
Which
imagination
of
Vasquez
tho'
it
were
true
,
as
in
my
iudgement
apparentlie
it
is
not
,
yet
doth
it
not
proue
Sir
Humfreys
intent
in
disprouing
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
.
Especiallie
supposing
,
as
the
same
Vasquez
affirmes
,
S.
Augustin
was
present
as
a
great
member
of
the
same
)
makes
mention
of
the
Benediction
of
the
Preist
vsed
in
mariage
as
in
a
holie
and
sacred
thing
.
Graunt
I
say
that
Vasquez
opinion
were
true
,
yet
would
it
not
serue
the
knights
turne
,
either
for
the
poofe
of
his
intent
,
or
for
the
excuse
of
his
false
and
craftie
dealing
.
Next
after
Vasquez
I
will
put
Suarez
althou'
according
to
the
order
of
Sir
Humfrey
he
is
the
first
man
he
belies
in
this
Poragraph
.
in
3.
part
d.
12.
sec.
1.
where
he
charges
him
to
saye
that
the
councell
of
Florence
did
insinuate
the
number
of
7.
Sacraments
,
Ambrose
,
Austin
,
Chrysostome
and
Bede
be
impertinently
alleged
.
For
they
none
of
them
denie
that
the
Sacraments
are
no
more
nor
lesse
then
seuen
.
And
of
S.
Isidore
it
is
falsely
affirmed
by
Sir
Humfrey
that
he
accounteth
but
of
3.
Sacraments
for
altho'
in
the
place
quoted
by
him
he
speakes
onely
of
three
(
which
yet
is
more
then
the
knight
will
alowe
of
)
yet
doth
he
not
affirme
that
ther
are
no
more
:
yea
&
in
other
seuerall
places
he
mentioneth
three
more
,
Pennance
,
Order
,
matrimonie
.
And
of
them
all
he
treates
onely
occasionallie
not
professedlie
as
the
reader
may
easilie
perceiue
,
and
therfore
doubtlesse
there
is
no
mention
of
Extreme
vnction
among
the
rest
,
of
which
neuerthelesse
he
was
not
ignorant
how
plainelie
S.
Iames
describes
it
,
neither
would
haue
omitted
it
if
occasion
had
serued
to
treate
of
it
.
Of
Pennance
he
treates
lib.
8.
orig.
page
83.
&
lib.
2.
de
offi.
Eccles.
of
Order
in
his
2.
booke
de
offic.
Eccles.
page
597.
and
598.
and
of
matrimonie
he
hath
expresse
wordes
in
the
same
booke
page
69.
Touching
S.
Chrysostome
,
Ambrose
,
Cyrill
and
Theophilactus
it
is
false
that
they
maintained
onely
two
Sacraments
,
and
as
for
Chrysostome
and
Theophilactus
,
vpon
the
6.
of
S.
Paule
to
the
Hebrewes
,
they
both
make
mention
of
Confirmation
.
S.
Ambrose
lib.
1.
de
Penit
:
makes
a
kynde
of
comparison
betwixt
Baptisme
and
Pennance
,
saying
:
vnum
in
vtroque
ministerium
est
,
&c.
and
S.
Cyrill
of
Ierusalem
lib.
12.
in
so
.
cap.
56.
doth
alsoe
compare
these
two
Sacraments
together
,
and
both
of
them
mention
the
Sacrament
of
Chrisme
.
the
one
Catech.
3.
the
other
lib.
3.
de
Sacra
.
cap.
2.
&
de
ijs
qui
mysterijs
initiantur
cap.
7.
so
that
none
of
thes
Fathers
which
Sir
Humfrey
produced
for
the
number
of
2.
onely
Sacraments
,
doe
agree
with
his
doctrine
:
and
yet
more
not
one
of
them
treates
in
anie
one
place
of
their
workes
of
the
precise
number
of
Sacraments
,
but
onely
soe
farre
as
their
matter
and
drift
required
.
Pascasius
also
is
falselie
dealt
with
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
both
in
his
meaning
and
in
the
translation
of
his
wordes
:
for
the
doth
not
saye
,
the
Sacramets
of
Christ
are
Baptisme
,
Chrisme
,
and
the
bodie
and
bloude
of
our
lord
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
doth
put
in
English
but.
Sunt
autem
Sacramenta
Christi
in
Ecclesia
:
that
is
:
but
Sacraments
of
Christ
in
the
Church
be
Baptisme
Chrysme
&c.
Meaning
onelie
that
Baptisme
,
Chrysme
and
the
Eucharist
are
such
Sacraments
as
he
treates
of
makeing
mention
of
those
onely
,
not
to
showe
the
precise
number
but
the
nature
of
a
Sacrament
in
generall
,
especiallie
touching
the
signification
and
effects
of
the
same
,
and
therfore
he
doth
exemplifie
in
those
onely
which
are
most
notoriouslie
knowne
for
such
and
their
matter
and
formes
most
obuious
,
omitting
the
rest
as
being
lesse
to
the
purpose
he
ther
handleth
.
And
for
Sir
Humfrey
to
affirme
that
Chrisme
is
crept
in
to
the
text
of
the
later
editions
,
that
is
but
an
idle
imagination
of
his
owne
,
otherwise
sure
he
would
haue
produced
some
other
more
auncient
edition
in
which
the
worde
Chrysme
is
not
found
.
And
certainelie
he
that
should
compare
the
faithfulnes
,
and
sinceritie
of
the
Romonists
in
that
nature
,
and
the
care
they
haue
to
publish
authours
purely
,
with
the
insinceritie
of
the
sectaries
,
he
would
presentlie
iudge
that
copie
which
wantes
the
worde
Chrisme
to
be
razed
by
them
that
haue
of
late
yeares
abolished
the
vse
of
it
in
their
Church
,
rather
then
haue
the
least
suspicion
in
the
world
that
the
same
should
be
added
by
Romanists
whose
doctrine
and
practice
in
that
particular
is
so
frequent
and
auncient
.
Especially
considering
that
it
makes
no
more
to
our
purpose
of
maintaining
the
septenarie
of
Sacraments
against
the
pretended
reformers
,
whether
the
worde
Chrysme
be
in
Pascasius
or
no
,
then
if
it
were
vndoubtedlie
true
that
he
had
made
no
mention
of
it
.
Supposing
it
is
sufficient
for
vs
to
knowe
that
this
author
in
that
place
neither
intended
to
proue
the
number
of
three
Sacraments
,
nor
yet
to
exclude
the
number
of
seuen
.
Howbeit
,
I
doe
not
denie
but
that
the
worde
Chrysme
being
in
the
text
,
it
suffices
to
conuince
that
the
Sacraments
of
Christ
are
more
then
two
.
And
in
deed
I
maruell
why
the
sectaries
especiallie
those
of
the
English
Church
should
labore
so
much
to
exclude
Confirmation
from
the
number
of
the
Sacraments
,
supposing
they
either
doe
practice
if
or
at
the
least
ought
to
practise
it
according
to
their
owne
ordinances
,
altho'
ther
is
nothing
prescribed
by
them
touching
the
vse
of
Chrysme
,
but
onely
or
cheefelie
mention
is
made
of
the
blowe
which
the
confirmer
giues
to
the
confirmed
with
a
certaine
phrase
or
forme
of
wordes
.
Concerning
which
ceremonie
I
haue
heard
that
vpon
a
time
,
a
certaine
nominall
Bishop
of
theirs
at
the
time
of
administration
,
was
so
extraordinarie
well
pleased
with
one
of
the
companie
,
of
the
feminine
gender
,
that
in
steed
of
the
ceremoniall
stroake
he
gaue
her
a
kisse
of
kindenesse
,
by
which
the
yonge
maide
assured
her selfe
she
receiued
more
grace
than
if
she
had
receiued
Confirmation
it selfe
accordnig
to
their
ordinarie
manner
.
And
now
this
may
be
sufficient
for
the
true
meaning
of
Pascasius
.
Hugo
a
sancto
Victore
is
most
peruerselie
dealt
with
when
out
of
Perkins
he
is
produced
by
Sir
Humfrey
against
the
Sacrament
of
Pennance
.
For
I
haue
read
him
lib.
1.
de
Sacramentis
cap.
12.
where
he
sayes
thus
in
expresse
termes
.
Septem
sunt
principalia
Sacramenta
quae
in
Ecclesia
ministrantur
.
ther
be
seuen
principall
Sacraments
which
are
ministred
in
the
Church
.
And
he
numbers
them
in
particular
and
Pennance
for
one
:
And
in
his
summa
sentent
.
tract.
6.
cap.
10.
he
saith
.
Sacramentum
Paenitentiae
redeuntibus
ad
Deum
semper
est
necessarium
.
Est
enim
secunda
tabula
post
naufragium
,
quia
post
baptismum
si
quis
vestem
innocentiae
peccando
amittit
per
paenitentiam
recuperare
poterit
.
And
by
this
you
plainelie
see
this
Romanist
is
groaslie
abused
both
by
Perkins
,
and
his
imitatour
,
as
if
he
were
a
denier
of
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
who
soe
particularlie
doth
acknowledge
them
.
As
in
like
manner
the
same
authour
is
abused
by
the
knight
page
128.
Touching
the
custome
of
the
communion
of
the
people
at
euerie
Masse
in
the
Primatiue
Church
,
by
omission
of
his
ensuing
wordes
which
are
these
.
Sed
propter
peccatum
circumstans
nunc
statutum
est
vt
communicaremus
solum
semel
in
anno
.
That
is
to
saie
.
But
by
reason
of
sinne
which
doth
compase
vs
aboute
,
it
is
now
decreed
that
we
communicate
thrice
a
yeare
.
Whereas
likewise
neither
in
the
former
wordes
of
this
authour
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
ther
is
a
iot
against
priuate
Masse
,
as
he
would
haue
it
,
but
onelie
a
relation
of
diuers
customes
of
the
Church
in
that
particular
point
of
practice
,
as
I
haue
declared
in
the
paragraph
of
that
matter
.
Bessarion
in
his
wordes
rehearsed
by
Sir
Humfrey
doth
not
denie
the
septenarie
number
,
nor
doth
absolutely
affirme
that
there
are
onelie
two
Sacraments
,
but
onelie
saith
that
we
read
of
two
onely
manifestly
deliuered
in
the
Gospell
:
which
is
not
contrarie
to
the
Tridentine
Councell
,
nor
yet
that
which
the
knight
intendes
to
proue
,
to
wit
that
the
doctrine
of
seuen
Sacraments
is
no
article
of
faith
.
And
what
if
Bessarion
should
saie
that
some
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
are
found
not
in
the
Gospell
but
in
the
Epistle
,
what
would
Sir
Humfrey
replie
to
that
?
But
in
earnest
I
haue
vewed
Bessarions
treatie
of
the
Eucharist
where
I
finde
that
,
altho'
he
makes
no
plaine
mention
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
as
not
hauing
anie
iuste
occasion
there
offered
to
handle
that
matter
,
yet
out
of
some
passages
of
his
discourse
with
other
circumstances
there
vnto
annexed
,
it
is
euidentlie
gathered
what
his
meaning
,
and
faith
was
touching
the
same
.
For
in
the
place
cited
by
the
knight
and
ther
aboutes
,
Cardinall
Bessarion
treates
particularlie
of
the
forme
of
the
Sacrament
of
Eucharist
,
prouing
that
it
consists
of
no
other
wordes
then
those
same
which
our
Sauiour
himselfe
consecrated
with
,
and
deliuered
to
the
Church
videlicet
.
This
is
my
bodie
:
This
is
my
bloud
.
And
by
occasion
of
this
he
mentioneth
Baptisme
,
as
being
one
of
the
two
Sacraments
which
onelie
haue
their
formes
expresselie
and
in
speciall
termes
contained
in
the
Gospell
and
specified
by
Christ
himselfe
.
And
therefore
a
little
before
that
which
Sir
Humfrey
cited
out
of
this
authour
,
he
saide
.
Illud
quoque
haud
contemnendum
videtur
quod
cum
duo
nobis
Sacramenta
à
Saluatore
traditae
fuerint
Baptismus
&
Eucharistia
vtrumque
verbis
suis
confici
iussit
:
By
which
wordes
it
is
certaine
&
cleare
that
he
there
speakes
onelie
of
such
Sacraments
as
our
Sauiour
most
verbally
or
most
expresselie
ordained
his
disciples
to
consecrate
and
administer
.
And
now
that
this
Cardinall
did
beleeue
that
there
are
more
Sacraments
then
these
,
it
is
euidentlie
conuinced
out
of
those
his
wordes
fol.
169.
saying
.
Ante
omniaigitur
sciendum
est
tam
hoc
Sacrosanctum
Communionis
de
quo
agimus
quam
caetera
Ecclesiae
Sacramenta
ideo
sacra
vocitari
,
quoniam
aliud
in
se
habent
quod
videtur
aliud
quod
non
corporis
oculis
sed
solo
intellectu
comprehenditur
.
And
after
in
the
same
page
.
Etenim
in
Sacramento
Baptismatis
ablutio
carnis
per
aquam
ita
est
Sacrementum
vt
duntaxat
signum
sit
ablutionis
peccatorum
.
Ipsa
enim
peccatorum
remissio
res
est
significata
nihil
vltra
significans
.
And
to
these
wordes
he
presentlie
addes
that
which
is
plainelie
to
our
purpose
,
to
wit
:
Hoc
idem
in
reliquis
Sacramentis
.
Ergo
&
in
Sacramento
Eucharistia
.
And
yet
more
plainelie
f.
175.
Quemadmodum
in
caeteris
omnibus
,
ita
etiam
in
hoc
Sacramento
concordes
sunt
Occidenibus
Orientales
.
That
is
.
Euen
as
in
all
the
rest
so
in
this
Sacrament
the
Occidentals
(
that
is
the
Romanists
)
doe
accorde
with
the
Orientals
)
that
is
the
Grecians
)
.
Besides
,
this
authour
was
a
Greek
Cardinall
of
the
Roman
Church
,
and
a
cheefe
agent
,
and
promoter
for
the
vnion
of
the
Latin
and
Greek
Church
in
the
Councell
of
Florence
,
where
the
number
of
seuen
Sacraments
was
defined
and
declared
.
To
omit
that
the
same
Bessarion
fol.
181.
makes
expresse
mention
of
the
Sacrament
of
Confirmation
for
so
he
saith
.
Quod
manifestum
fiet
si
quis
ad
Sacramentum
Chrysmatis
mentem
conuerterit
.
So
that
Sir
Humfrey
could
scarce
a
chosen
a
worse
Patron
for
proofe
of
his
pare
of
deformed
Sacraments
,
then
is
this
Cardinall
,
if
he
had
sought
all
Greece
ouer
:
it
being
manifest
that
he
was
a
professed
defender
not
onelie
of
the
two
Sacraments
he
mentioneth
in
the
place
cited
by
him
,
but
also
a
firme
beleeuer
of
the
other
fiue
which
the
pretended
reformers
renounce
&
thrust
violentlie
out
of
the
rancke
of
true
Sacraments
.
It
is
true
I
haue
aduertised
some
smale
sleight
of
Sir
Humfrey
in
translating
or
transforming
the
worde
manifeste
in
Latin
,
into
the
worde
plainelie
in
English
:
but
this
but
one
of
his
diminutiue
trickes
and
so
I
passe
it
ouer
.
Onelie
I
desire
the
indifferent
reader
to
reflect
how
peruers
and
incredulous
a
generation
this
is
which
refuseth
to
beleeue
points
of
doctrine
because
they
are
not
manifestelie
contained
in
the
scripture
.
Whereas
on
the
contrarie
this
most
learned
and
Catholike
Cardinall
Bessarion
altho'
he
graunted
that
two
onelie
Sacraments
of
the
Church
are
so
expressed
in
the
written
worde
of
God
,
yet
doth
he
with
a
firme
and
constant
faith
imbrace
the
rest
.
S.
Aug.
is
impertinentlie
cited
both
in
his
third
booke
of
Christian
doctrine
c.
9.
and
also
de
simbolo
ad
Cathecu
.
l.
2.
c.
6.
in
regarde
that
in
neither
of
the
places
he
speakes
of
two
onely
Sacraments
as
his
wordes
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
himselfe
doe
manifest
.
Nay
in
the
latter
place
he
speakes
not
at
all
of
proper
Sacraments
,
as
his
wordes
following
faithleslie
omitted
by
our
aduersarie
,
doe
declare
,
for
thus
S.
Austin
finisheth
his
sentence
.
Aqua
in
qua
est
sponsa
purificata
,
&
sanguis
in
quo
inuenitur
esse
dotata
:
That
is
,
water
in
which
the
spouse
is
purified
,
and
bloud
in
which
she
is
founde
to
be
endowed
:
in
which
passage
no
mention
is
made
of
anie
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
,
as
the
reader
may
plainelie
perceiue
.
Of
S.
Cyprian
I
saie
the
same
I
saide
of
S.
Ambrose
,
Austin
&
the
rest
.
Dominicus
à
toto
cited
out
of
Bellarmin
cap.
4.
de
Sacramento
Ordinis
doubteth
not
of
Order
in
generall
,
but
he
onelie
makes
a
question
of
Episcopall
Order
in
particular
,
whether
it
be
trulie
a
Sacrament
:
and
so
he
is
ignorantlie
and
impertinentlie
here
alledged
,
with
abuse
both
of
him
and
the
reader
.
As
in
like
manner
Suarez
or
rather
Hugo
,
Lombard
,
Bonauenture
,
Hales
,
and
Altisiodor
.
Of
whome
altho'
Suarez
Tom.
4.
de
Sacramento
Extremae
Vnctionis
affirmes
that
they
were
of
opinion
that
Extreme
Vnction
was
not
instituted
by
Christ
,
but
by
S.
Iames
from
whence
suarez
saith
id
plainelie
followes
not
to
be
a
true
Sacrament
,
yet
suarez
himselfe
addes
(
which
Sir
Humfrey
fraudulentlie
left
out
)
that
those
authours
denied
the
consequence
.
By
which
it
is
manifest
that
those
diuines
absolutelie
beleeued
Extreme
Vnction
for
one
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
:
not
obstanding
their
material
errour
aboute
the
institution
of
it
,
which
errour
being
impertinent
to
this
present
question
of
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
,
their
testimonie
was
impertinentlie
alledged
and
proueth
nothing
to
our
aduersaries
purpose
.
S.
Bonauenture
also
is
abused
by
the
knight
p.
165.
where
out
of
Chamier
he
carps
him
saying
:
that
for
wante
of
better
proofes
,
he
was
prodigall
of
his
conceiptes
in
honour
of
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
.
But
here
I
finde
greater
prodigalitie
in
the
dishoneste
proceeding
of
Sir
Humfrey
,
and
his
master
minister
chamier
in
their
iniuste
taxeing
of
Bonauenture
,
then
I
finde
wante
of
proofes
in
that
authour
,
for
if
either
Chamier
or
the
knight
had
beene
disposed
,
they
might
haue
found
warrantable
allegations
in
him
out
of
scripture
for
the
probation
of
euerie
Sacrament
in
particular
as
his
seuerall
questions
vpon
them
doe
testifie
.
But
these
men
being
much
more
disposed
to
cauille
then
to
finde
the
truth
:
they
would
not
caste
their
eyes
so
farre
,
but
onelie
layed
handes
vpon
that
which
came
nearest
in
their
waye
,
I
meane
vpon
some
of
the
congruences
onelie
(
and
yet
purposelie
omitting
the
cheefe
)
which
that
pious
diuine
makes
vse
of
more
for
explication
then
for
proofe
of
the
doctrine
.
And
thus
these
ill
occupied
Pedants
trifle
with
him
who
had
more
learning
,
and
grauitie
,
without
comparison
,
then
they
and
their
whole
Congregation
nor
yet
had
they
both
wit
to
cite
the
place
they
alledged
trulie
,
but
quoted
the
second
booke
for
the
fourth
.
Iuste
according
to
this
manner
of
proceeding
the
knight
also
dealeth
with
S.
Thomas
,
the
Councell
of
Trent
,
and
Bellarmin
and
others
,
as
if
they
had
beene
so
destitute
of
arguments
of
scripture
and
Fathers
for
their
proofes
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
,
that
they
were
glad
to
refuge
to
figures
and
similitudes
of
seuen
virtues
,
seuen
capitall
vices
,
seuen
planets
,
seuen
defects
proceeding
from
Originall
sinne
,
seuen
dayes
of
vnleauened
bread
,
the
offering
of
seuen
Rams
,
seuen
lauers
of
naaman
,
seuen
candlestickes
,
seuen
seales
,
seuen
bookes
and
the
like
:
whereas
in
truth
these
mysticall
numbers
are
applied
to
the
seuen
Sacraments
by
the
foresaid
authours
whereby
to
confirme
and
declare
the
matter
more
plainelie
ouer
and
aboue
their
other
most
pregnant
and
authenticall
proofes
of
the
same
as
in
them
all
and
particularlie
in
S.
Thomas
,
and
bellarmin
,
is
too
plainelie
to
be
seene
in
their
workes
,
to
be
brought
in
question
by
anie
one
of
reading
and
vnderstanding
;
S.
Thomas
hauing
seuen
seuerallie
distinct
questions
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
a
parte
,
besides
that
he
hath
of
them
in
generall
:
and
the
like
I
say
of
Bellarmin
.
And
as
for
the
Councell
of
Trent
it
either
produceth
proofes
of
scripture
and
Fathers
actuallie
for
euerie
particular
Sacrament
,
or
remittes
the
reader
to
other
former
Councells
and
decrees
which
haue
them
.
And
so
wee
see
by
this
that
Sir
Humfrey
doth
but
cogge
and
trifle
for
wante
of
solid
subiect
.
Touching
the
citation
of
Caietan
vpon
the
5.
cap.
of
S.
Iames
,
it
is
true
I
finde
the
same
which
Sir
Humfrey
relates
at
the
least
in
sense
,
and
so
I
cannot
accuse
him
in
this
place
of
the
ordinarie
imperfection
which
he
vseth
in
citing
authours
.
Neuerthelesse
he
might
easilie
haue
knowne
that
the
same
Caietan
in
his
Commentarie
vpon
the
65.
question
of
the
3.
parte
of
S.
Thomas
art.
1.
doth
agree
with
him
in
the
septenarie
number
of
Sacraments
:
and
therefore
in
his
glosse
vpon
the
second
article
of
that
same
question
he
numbers
Extreme
Vnction
for
one
of
the
seuen
,
saying
:
In
titulo
intellige
per
ordinem
praedictum
,
ordinem
quo
numerata
sunt
Sacramenta
in
praecedenti
articulo
.
videlieet
Baptisma
,
Confirmatio
,
Eucharistia
,
Paenitentia
,
Extrema
Vnctio
,
Ordo
,
Matrimonium
.
By
which
it
is
manifest
that
Caietan
defended
with
his
master
S.
Thomas
Extreme
Vnction
to
be
a
Sacrament
,
and
consequentlie
he
is
no
fauourer
of
Sir
Humfrey
in
this
point
of
which
now
we
treat
.
And
the
same
I
saye
of
the
same
Caietan
alledged
by
the
knight
as
saying
that
the
reader
cannot
inferre
out
of
the
wordes
of
S.
Paule
,
Sacramentum
hoc
magnum
est
,
that
matrimonie
is
a
Sacrament
,
because
sainct
Paule
saith
not
,
Sacramentum
hoc
magnum
est
,
sed
mysterium
hoc
magnum
est
.
But
what
soeuer
out
of
the
predominating
subtiltie
of
his
wit
,
Caietan
held
of
the
interpretation
of
this
place
of
sainct
Paule
:
in
which
as
also
in
the
exposition
of
some
other
scriptures
,
he
is
noted
and
notorious
to
haue
beene
more
subtil
then
solid
,
yet
certaine
it
is
that
he
absolutelie
defended
Matrimonie
to
be
one
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
of
the
Church
as
both
his
wordes
aboue
cited
doe
manifestlie
conuince
,
and
also
the
great
punctuality
with
which
he
is
knowne
to
haue
obserued
and
followed
his
much
respected
and
reuerenced
Patron
sainct
Thomas
in
all
points
of
doctrine
,
swearing
in
a
manner
euerie
where
in
the
wordes
of
his
master
;
so
that
the
knight
cannot
haue
as
much
as
anie
conlorable
reason
to
imagin
that
Caietan
standes
for
him
in
this
matter
and
against
the
Romanists
:
As
neither
he
hath
to
conceiue
the
like
of
Canus
,
whome
he
in
the
same
manner
cites
as
if
we
were
a
denier
of
matrimonie
to
be
a
Sacrament
,
or
at
the
least
a
testifier
that
other
diuines
pronounce
doubtfullie
of
the
same
:
whereas
in
reallitie
Canus
in
defence
of
his
owne
priuate
opinion
that
matrimonie
is
not
a
Sacrament
nor
conferreth
grace
except
when
it
is
administred
by
a
Preist
,
doth
onelie
name
some
diuines
which
varie
in
their
opinions
concerning
the
determinate
matter
&
forme
of
matrimonie
,
and
touching
the
manner
how
or
when
it
giues
grace
,
yet
both
he
and
the
rest
constantlie
&
expressely
teaching
,
that
absolutelie
it
hath
both
matter
and
forme
and
giues
graces
in
one
sorte
or
other
,
and
numbering
it
among
the
rest
of
the
seuen
Sacraments
as
their
writings
doe
testifie
.
So
that
it
was
great
preposterousnesse
in
Sir
Humfrey
to
vse
the
testimonie
of
Canus
against
the
truth
of
the
Sacrament
of
Matrimonie
since
neither
he
nor
those
other
diuines
which
he
names
viz.
Lombard
,
Scotus
,
sainct
Thom.
Ricard
.
Palud
.
Durand
.
And
these
being
all
the
authors
which
the
knigth
cites
is
this
paragraffe
,
or
at
the
least
all
that
deserue
anser
,
we
may
plainelie
see
that
not
obstanding
all
the
arte
and
skill
which
he
hath
vsed
to
make
them
seeme
his
owne
,
yet
the.
Roman
faith
touching
the
seuen
Sacraments
of
the
Churche
standes
still
firmelie
auncient
,
vniuersall
,
and
visible
,
which
is
that
he
intended
to
destroy
,
and
I
maintaine
.
Whence
we
may
inferre
for
the
conclusion
&
censure
thereof
,
that
all
which
our
aduersarie
bringeth
in
it
to
proue
that
there
is
neither
antiquitie
,
nor
vniuersalitie
in
the
Fathers
,
nor
consent
in
the
schoolemen
(
as
he
speaketh
)
sufficient
to
shew
the
seuen
Sacraments
to
be
instituted
by
Christ
,
is
meare
Sophistrie
,
founded
vpon
his
owne
misinterpretations
,
falsifications
,
and
corruptions
of
the
authours
he
citeth
,
and
that
consequentlie
his
owne
conditionall
curse
is
absolutelie
fallen
vpon
him
,
in
which
we
must
of
necessitie
leaue
him
till
such
time
as
by
humble
recantation
of
his
errours
he
shall
desire
absolution
.
And
now
hence
I
passe
to
the
next
Paragraffe
which
is
of
the
Communion
vnder
one
kinde
.
In
which
the
knight
by
a
speciall
parenthesis
which
he
makes
in
his
172.
page
,
peruersely
persuades
his
reader
that
the
foresaid
manner
of
Communion
in
one
kinde
,
was
decreed
as
it
were
in
dispite
of
God
and
man
by
the
Councell
of
Constance
,
&
that
from
the
time
of
that
Councell
the
Communion
vnder
both
kindes
was
adiudged
heresie
,
which
is
not
so
,
for
the
Roman
Church
doth
not
teach
that
the
communion
in
both
kindes
is
hereticall
,
but
onely
that
it
is
heresie
to
condemne
the
communion
in
one
kinde
for
vnlawfull
,
or
repugnant
to
Christs
institution
,
and
so
his
position
is
both
false
and
calumnious
,
as
appeares
not
onely
by
the
decree
of
the
same
councell
,
but
also
by
the
tenour
of
the
decree
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
neither
of
which
councels
defined
communion
in
both
kindes
either
conformable
or
disconformable
to
anie
precept
of
either
God
or
man
in
the
nature
of
faith
,
but
they
onely
declare
the
practise
of
the
communion
in
one
kinde
as
a
thing
not
vnlawfull
,
or
contrarie
to
Christs
institution
or
precept
,
but
otherwise
conuenient
for
the
present
state
of
the
Church
,
in
respect
of
the
reuerence
due
to
the
Sacrament
:
Salmeron
is
abused
by
Sir
Humfrey
in
regarde
he
takes
onelie
some
certaine
wordes
of
his
which
seeme
to
make
for
his
purpose
,
and
omits
others
which
make
against
him
which
follow
in
the
verie
next
leafe
,
and
doe
so
temper
the
sense
of
the
former
that
taking
them
together
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
fauoure
the
reformed
doctrine
.
For
thus
he
saith
.
Nos
enim
&c.
For
we
quoth
hee
,
doe
so
confesse
the
custome
to
haue
beene
of
communicating
the
laye
people
vnder
both
kindes
,
that
yet
allwayes
in
some
cases
,
the
vse
of
one
kinde
hath
beene
practized
.
Which
wordes
quite
dashe
Sir
Humfreys
designe
of
prouing
that
the
Church
of
Rome
in
this
particular
,
hath
created
a
newe
article
of
faith
manifestlie
repugnant
to
Christs
worde
,
institution
,
&
practice
of
the
primatiue
Churh
,
except
hee
will
be
so
audacious
as
to
condemne
here
also
of
sacriledge
for
her
practice
in
those
cases
,
as
he
doth
our
present
Church
.
In
which
passage
I
much
wonder
at
the
slownes
of
him
that
otherwise
vseth
to
be
so
nimble
and
actiue
as
that
in
this
place
he
tooke
not
paines
to
turne
one
leafe
further
for
the
discouerie
of
the
truth
.
And
the
same
I
say
of
Valentia
who
speakes
iuste
to
the
same
sense
and
purpose
de
legit
.
vsu
Eucharistiae
cap.
10.
as
also
did
Father
Fisher
and
Castro
in
the
places
cited
by
our
aduersarie
.
And
as
for
sainct
Thomas
vpon
the
6.
of
sainct
Iohn
.
And
lyra
in
1.
Cor.
11.
they
neither
of
them
disproue
communion
in
one
kinde
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
doth
alledge
,
but
expresselie
defendit
.
Now
touching
Lyra
,
Sir
Humfrey
hath
deceiptfullie
omitted
those
wordes
of
his
,
which
include
the
verie
reason
&
approbation
of
the
change
which
the
Roman
Church
hath
made
,
it
being
the
same
which
sainct
Thomas
alledgeth
in
parte
as
his
wordes
in
the
margen
declare
.
but
now
the
communion
of
both
kyndes
is
abolished
:
Sir
Humfrey
ought
to
haue
added
that
authours
reason
of
the
abolishment
to
wit
this
.
For
the
scandals
which
haue
happened
,
and
which
yet
may
happen
.
And
the
like
I
say
of
Taper
,
to
whose
wordes
should
haue
beene
ioyned
that
which
followes
,
videlicet
.
This
communion
of
the
people
in
both
kindes
hath
danger
of
Sacriledge
annexed
vnto
it
in
sheding
the
bloud
of
Christ
,
and
in
the
omission
of
the
chalis
no
danger
doth
occurre
nor
anie
losse
of
Spirituall
grace
.
The
Councell
of
Constance
is
impertinentlie
alledged
as
I
haue
declared
before
.
Bellarmin
in
the
same
place
and
wordes
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
doth
directlie
impugne
that
for
which
he
is
alledged
by
the
knight
,
to
wit
for
the
Communion
of
all
the
people
in
both
kindes
.
For
so
he
saith
.
And
besides
▪
all
did
not
receiue
in
both
kindes
.
As
for
Cassander
altho'
we
haue
him
not
in
the
rancke
of
Romanists
;
And
this
being
all
I
need
to
say
touching
the
testimonies
of
the
cited
authours
and
of
Sir
Humfreyes
proceedings
about
them
,
I
will
now
conclude
the
censure
of
this
whole
Paragraph
;
that
directly
it
containeth
nothing
which
requires
so
exacte
a
discussion
as
I
haue
made
of
it
.
And
that
I
haue
oftentimes
maruailed
why
the
reformers
should
stand
so
peremptorily
against
the
Communion
in
one
kinde
,
supposing
that
euen
according
to
their
owne
principles
,
neither
the
words
of
Christ
nor
the
intention
of
the
minister
,
nor
both
these
together
,
are
of
force
and
efficacy
to
make
any
change
or
alteration
in
the
matter
of
the
Sacrament
,
but
that
when
they
haue
said
and
done
all
they
can
,
they
shall
remaine
bread
&
wine
as
truely
as
if
they
had
receaued
them
in
the
tauerne
;
especially
if
we
consider
yet
farther
that
,
according
to
the
reformed
doctrine
,
the
intention
of
the
minister
is
not
necessarily
required
to
the
constitution
of
any
Sacrament
;
and
yet
without
the
same
it
is
cleerly
vnpossible
to
conceiue
how
the
Eucharist
can
be
receaued
by
them
in
remembrance
of
the
death
and
passion
of
Christ
more
in
both
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
then
in
one
alone
,
especially
supposing
that
by
virtue
of
the
institution
and
commaunde
of
Christ
each
of
them
in
particular
is
to
be
receiued
in
memorie
of
him
.
And
this
I
say
hath
caused
me
many
times
to
wonder
,
euen
yet
persuading
my selfe
the
Nouellists
can
haue
no
other
motiue
then
the
satisfaction
of
their
owne
contentious
spirits
,
to
stand
so
nicely
vpon
this
puntillio
with
the
Church
of
Rome
;
which
refractory
proceeding
of
them
in
this
matter
may
yet
seeme
more
vnreasonable
to
the
reader
if
he
consider
that
,
altho'
Vasquez
and
some
other
Romane
diuines
are
of
opinion
that
greater
fruites
of
grace
are
reaped
by
the
communion
in
both
kindes
then
in
one
,
yet
doth
it
not
thence
followe
that
the
communion
in
one
kinde
cannot
be
lawfully
practized
,
as
our
Precisians
will
needes
haue
it
,
nor
yet
that
the
communion
vnder
one
kinde
is
but
a
halfe
Communion
,
as
the
knight
doth
heere
malitiously
inculcate
;
but
in
either
of
the
two
kinds
it
is
most
euident
there
is
a
perfect
and
intire
Sacrament
according
to
the
true
definition
thereof
,
in
regard
there
is
found
in
either
of
the
consecrated
formes
a
visible
signe
of
an
inuisible
grace
instituted
by
God
:
as
also
because
the
body
of
Christ
euen
according
to
the
tenet
of
our
aduersaries
being
truely
,
really
and
substantially
receiued
vnder
the
forme
of
bread
onely
altho'
they
meane
onely
by
faith
;
it
doth
follow
infallibly
that
vnlesse
they
graunt
that
Christ
can
dye
againe
by
separation
of
his
bloud
from
his
body
,
or
that
his
perfect
and
intire
body
is
not
there
receaued
but
onely
a
part
of
it
:
it
doth
I
say
necessarily
follow
that
vnder
the
forme
of
bread
alone
there
is
Christs
bloud
with
his
body
,
and
so
a
perfect
communion
of
them
both
receaued
in
that
one
kinde
.
The
Parahraph
following
is
about
prayer
and
seruice
in
an
vnknowne
tongue
,
in
which
point
Sir
Humfrey
saith
true
in
that
he
affirmeth
that
the
Roman
Church
celebrates
Masse
and
publick
seruice
in
Latin
,
and
it
is
also
true
that
the
Councell
of
Trent
hath
declared
it
not
to
be
expedient
that
it
be
celebrated
euerie
where
in
the
vulgar
language
.
But
yet
it
is
false
to
say
that
either
the
Church
or
Councell
hath
commaunded
it
to
be
celebrated
in
an
vnknowne
language
;
for
Latin
cannot
trulie
be
said
to
be
an
vnknowne
language
,
but
rather
it
is
a
generall
language
,
a
knowne
speech
,
more
vsed
then
anie
one
language
in
the
world
:
And
altho'
it
be
not
vnderstood
of
the
ignorant
sort
of
people
,
yet
it
is
lesse
vncoth
vnto
them
then
anie
other
language
excepting
their
owne
mother
tongue
,
yea
then
anie
other
publike
language
,
I
meane
then
either
hebrew
or
greeke
,
and
finallie
it
is
a
language
fitter
for
mutuall
communication
in
religion
then
anie
other
tongue
,
and
among
the
more
learned
sort
of
people
of
all
nations
,
the
most
familiar
of
all
.
And
I
would
faine
knowe
of
the
reformers
what
they
haue
to
doe
to
call
that
in
question
which
hath
binne
generallie
practised
in
the
Church
for
manie
hundred
yeeres
before
they
and
their
reformation
were
hatched
.
Who
appointed
them
for
iudges
in
this
matter
?
Let
them
meddle
in
their
owne
affaires
,
their
cause
is
not
ours
,
we
are
all
one
both
in
our
religion
,
and
in
the
forme
,
and
rites
of
our
religion
;
we
communicate
with
all
the
members
of
our
Church
euen
in
the
same
externall
Ceremonies
in
what
place
soeuer
they
be
,
and
they
with
vs
.
But
you
in
England
haue
built
a
new
Church
different
euen
from
the
rest
of
the
pretended
reformed
Churches
of
other
Countries
;
you
are
not
vniforme
,
neyther
in
doctrine
nor
Ceremonies
,
and
so
it
is
not
amisse
for
your
purpose
that
you
vse
a
language
in
your
publick
seruice
in
which
you
as
little
agree
with
your
brothers
as
in
your
religion
:
Nay
in
my
opinion
supposing
your
separation
in
communion
of
religion
,
you
haue
taken
a
politick
course
to
separate
your selues
also
in
the
language
of
your
seruice
,
otherwise
it
might
happen
vnto
you
and
your
French
and
dutch
brothers
,
as
it
hath
donne
alreadie
betweene
the
Gūmarists
and
Arminians
,
(
especiallie
now
when
Arminianisme
begins
to
spred
itselfe
)
who
are
knowne
to
haue
entered
into
the
Church
with
zealous
communication
one
with
another
and
yet
the
feruour
of
their
spirits
hath
so
much
increased
,
that
before
the
sermon
was
ended
,
there
hath
appeered
good
store
of
broken
pates
and
perhaps
worse
;
for
auoyding
of
which
inconueniencies
our
English
Nouellists
as
it
may
be
supposed
haue
their
seuerall
Churches
and
formes
of
seruice
,
and
doctrine
for
themselues
,
the
French
,
and
the
Dutch
:
whereas
one
the
contrarie
the
professours
of
the
Romane
Church
by
reason
of
their
publick
seruice
or
Masse
is
in
a
common
language
,
are
put
to
no
such
shifts
,
but
wheresoeuer
they
meet
,
they
finde
meanes
to
serue
God
and
to
communicate
together
in
the
verie
same
manner
they
doe
in
their
owne
Countries
,
whether
they
be
old
or
yong
,
learned
,
or
ignorant
;
of
which
great
comfort
the
reformers
by
reason
of
their
new
forme
of
seruice
in
the
vulgar
tongue
,
in
manie
occasions
doe
wilfully
depriue
themselues
.
To
say
nothing
of
the
dignitie
which
the
seruice
of
God
receiueth
from
the
grauitie
of
the
Latine
tongue
,
and
the
disparagement
which
it
suffereth
by
a
vulgar
language
,
supposing
also
that
by
that
meanes
euen
the
secret
misteries
of
the
Christian
faith
come
to
be
as
familiar
in
the
mouthes
of
euerie
apish
boy
as
they
be
to
the
greatest
Doctour
of
the
Church
,
a
thing
both
much
repugnant
to
the
practise
of
auncient
times
,
and
also
which
giueth
great
occasion
to
manie
to
vilifie
,
and
disesteeme
the
sacred
wordes
of
God
included
in
the
publike
seruice
;
yea
and
oftentimes
the
thinges
themselues
by
the
wordes
signified
,
as
experience
doth
daily
teach
vs
:
to
omit
the
alteration
&
corruption
which
it
is
more
subiect
vnto
in
a
vulgar
tongue
then
in
Latine
which
is
alwaies
the
same
,
as
the
same
experience
doth
make
manifest
.
But
Sir
Humfrey
goeth
on
,
and
tells
his
reader
,
that
some
of
the
Trent
Bishops
adiudged
the
first
part
of
the
decrec
of
the
Councell
to
be
questionable
,
for
that
it
seemed
to
contradict
itselfe
in
that
it
affirmeth
the
Masse
to
containe
much
instruction
for
the
faithfull
,
and
yet
commaundeth
that
parte
of
the
seruice
to
be
vttered
with
a
lowe
voyce
,
and
in
an
vnknowne
tongue
,
and
for
this
,
for
want
of
better
authours
,
he
citeth
the
historie
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
.
But
all
this
is
but
a
meere
cauill
grounded
in
the
relation
of
a
false
historiographer
:
for
that
if
anie
such
thing
had
happened
after
the
foresaid
decree
was
once
confirmed
,
it
is
not
so
long
a
time
since
the
Councell
was
finished
,
but
that
the
fact
of
those
Bishops
would
haue
binne
knowne
to
the
world
,
yea
and
their
punishment
for
such
their
temeritie
,
if
they
had
remayned
refractorie
,
would
haue
binne
so
published
,
as
at
the
least
some
one
or
other
writer
would
haue
taken
notice
of
the
same
,
as
well
as
the
authour
of
that
relation
:
neyther
is
their
anie
contradiction
in
the
said
decree
,
in
regard
it
is
manifest
that
by
the
instruction
of
the
people
,
the
Councell
meaneth
eyther
wholie
or
cheeflie
the
epistle
&
Gospell
of
the
Masse
;
as
also
for
that
the
same
Councell
withall
doth
expresselie
giue
Order
that
the
Pastours
of
the
Church
interpret
and
declare
the
misteries
of
the
Masse
to
their
parishoners
,
which
order
taketh
away
all
colour
of
contradiction
which
can
be
imagined
in
the
wordes
of
the
decree
;
especiallie
supposing
that
in
what
language
or
with
what
voice
soeuer
the
Masse
be
celebrated
,
the
foresaid
exposition
will
supplie
all
the
obscuritie
which
from
thence
can
arise
.
But
how
be
it
this
which
I
haue
said
is
true
:
yet
I
haue
discouered
by
reading
that
passage
in
the
foresaid
Historie
,
that
it
doth
not
so
relate
it
,
but
quite
in
an
other
manner
,
for
that
historie
doth
not
affirme
that
the
Tridentine
Bishops
made
that
doubt
or
question
of
the
decree
which
ordaineth
the
celebration
of
Masse
in
a
lowe
voyce
and
vnknowne
language
as
ambiguous
in
the
construction
:
After
this
the
knight
endeuoureth
to
proue
that
the
Masse
ought
not
to
be
celebrated
in
a
silent
and
vnknowne
voyce
,
because
sayth
he
the
Apostles
were
commanded
to
showe
forth
the
Lords
death
till
his
comming
:
and
to
this
end
he
citeth
Haymo
vpon
the
14.
chapter
of
the
firste
to
the
Corinth
,
and
Iustinian
the
Emperour
in
Nou.
Const.
out
of
Cassander
,
also
the
Greg.
Decet
.
Tit.
31.
de
Off.
Iud.
Ord.
cap.
14.
But
to
this
I
answere
that
both
the
knights
reason
and
the
testimonies
of
these
authours
are
impertinent
,
because
the
command
layd
vpon
the
Apostles
was
not
that
in
this
misterie
they
should
shewe
forth
Christs
death
in
words
,
but
principallie
indeedes
,
and
therefore
our
Sauiour
in
the
institution
of
the
Eucharist
did
not
bid
his
Apostles
,
say
it
in
remembrance
of
him
,
but
doe
it
in
remembrance
of
him
.
Hoc
facite
in
meam
commemorationem
.
Otherwise
the
Sectaries
themselues
should
be
conuinced
to
violate
Christes
commaundement
,
since
that
those
who
receiue
their
communion
say
not
one
worde
.
In
like
manner
let
the
reader
veiw
and
vnderstand
perfectlie
the
sense
of
the
the
wordes
cited
out
of
other
authours
,
and
he
will
easilie
perceaue
there
is
not
one
sillable
in
them
against
Latine
seruice
or
prayer
as
condemning
it
eyther
for
vnlawfull
in
itselfe
or
otherwise
contrarie
to
the
commandement
of
God
.
Haymo
doth
onelie
comment
vpon
that
passage
of
sainct
Paul
1.
Cor
14.
If
I
am
ignorant
of
the
virtue
of
the
voyce
,
I
shall
be
to
him
to
whome
I
speake
barbarous
,
onelie
declaring
in
playner
words
that
which
the
Apostle
speaketh
breiflie
and
obscurelie
,
but
sayth
not
a
worde
against
the
office
of
the
Church
in
Latin
.
Iustinian
(
if
anie
such
constitution
he
made
,
of
which
it
is
much
doubted
,
by
reason
this
clause
is
not
founde
in
the
auncient
translation
,
neither
is
it
expounded
by
Cuiacio
)
ordaineth
onelie
in
generall
that
Bishops
,
and
Preists
celebrate
the
oblation
,
and
minister
the
Sacraments
of
Baptisme
and
the
Eucharist
non
tacito
modo
not
secretlie
,
but
with
a
lowde
voice
;
but
he
speaketh
not
in
particular
of
all
partes
of
the
Masse
,
and
at
the
least
he
speaketh
not
of
the
Canon
except
he
meanes
of
the
wordes
of
consecration
which
the
Romanists
doe
not
denie
but
the
Grecians
haue
a
custome
of
pronouncing
them
loude
.
And
as
for
other
partes
of
the
Masse
,
the
most
of
them
are
pronounced
commonlie
in
the
Romane
Church
so
that
the
auditours
may
heere
.
And
according
to
this
Iustinian
peraduenture
might
aduise
the
Preistes
of
his
time
to
doe
,
when
neuerthelesse
it
is
certaine
the
Masse
was
in
no
vulgar
language
.
The
decretalls
speake
not
of
anie
vulgar
tongue
but
onelie
of
Greeke
and
Latin
,
as
,
the
decree
of
Innocent
the
third
which
may
be
seene
in
the
ninth
chap.
of
the
Generall
Councell
of
Lateran
,
doth
declare
.
Neyther
doth
the
Roman
Church
so
strictlie
command
that
the
publike
seruice
be
ministred
in
the
Latine
tongue
,
that
she
doth
condemne
eyther
the
Greeke
or
Syrian
Church
for
vsing
the
Grecian
or
Caldaian
tongue
in
the
diuine
offices
or
publike
seruice
,
but
onelie
commandeth
as
more
couenient
that
they
be
not
performed
in
a
vulgar
language
.
Lastly
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
some
eight
or
nine
Romanists
who
confesse
(
sayth
he
)
that
in
the
first
ages
publike
prayers
were
vsed
for
the
understanding
of
the
people
.
But
to
omit
that
he
vseth
no
great
sinceritie
in
the
citation
and
translation
of
the
testimonies
of
some
of
the
authours
he
citeth
in
this
paragraph
,
as
may
appeere
particularlie
in
the
quotation
of
Waldensis
;
I
say
not
to
stand
here
vpon
this
which
I
shall
more
conuenientlie
examen
afterwardes
:
I
answere
,
that
those
authours
affirme
that
which
we
doe
not
denie
,
to
wit
,
that
perhaps
(
which
worde
Sir
Humfrey
deceitfullie
leaues
out
in
his
translation
of
S.
Tho.
testimonie
cited
out
of
his
3.
lection
vpon
1.
Cor.
14.
)
And
the
same
I
(
or
Cassander
forme
me
)
anser
to
the
constitution
of
Iustinian
which
Cassander
himselfe
alledges
to
that
same
purpose
and
in
no
other
sense
.
And
so
in
like
manner
the
wordes
of
the
Decretals
are
violentlie
drawe
to
a
sense
repugnant
to
the
authors
meaning
that
is
from
doctrinall
tongues
to
vulgar
languages
.
To
the
wordes
of
Lyra
,
if
he
had
dealt
sincerelie
,
Sir
Humfrey
ought
to
haue
added
those
which
immediatlie
ensue
and
explicate
his
minde
more
clearelie
:
Sed
postquam
populus
multiplicatus
fuit
&
consueuit
se
conformare
ministris
Ecclesiae
vtpote
stando
cum
dicitur
Euangelium
deposito
caputio
adorando
Eucharistiam
,
&
consimilia
fiunt
in
Ecclesia
Latina
in
Latino
,
&
sufficit
quod
Clericus
respondeat
pro
populo
,
expeditius
enim
fit
hoc
modo
quam
in
vulgati
.
But
since
the
people
increased
and
is
accustomed
to
conforme
it selfe
to
the
ministers
of
the
Church
,
to
wit
by
standing
at
the
Gospell
,
by
puting
of
their
bonet
to
adore
the
Eucharist
and
such
like
,
are
done
in
the
Latine
Church
in
Latin
,
and
it
is
sufficient
that
the
clearke
ansers
for
the
people
,
for
it
is
thus
more
readilie
performed
then
in
the
vulgar
tonge
.
Lyr.
in
1.
Cor.
14.
Which
wordes
are
so
plaine
against
Sir
Humfrey
in
diuers
respects
that
he
may
be
ashamed
to
heare
them
.
Belethus
cited
out
of
Cassander
to
proue
that
seruice
and
prayer
must
be
in
the
vulgar
language
,
is
abused
by
them
both
.
In
the
rehearsall
of
D.
Hardings
wordes
Sir
Humfrey
takes
onelie
those
which
testifie
that
in
the
Primatiue
Church
prayers
were
in
the
vulgar
language
.
But
he
leaues
out
the
iuste
reasons
which
the
Doctor
alledges
for
the
alteration
of
the
same
made
by
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
euen
with
in
the
first
foure
hundreth
yeares
:
as
also
he
omits
those
pregnant
proofes
which
he
brings
to
showe
that
six
hundreth
yeares
after
Christ
the
seruice
of
the
Church
was
in
no
other
language
then
in
Greeke
or
Latine
:
By
all
which
the
reader
may
perceiue
this
author
is
not
sincerelie
dealt
with
in
this
passage
,
that
which
yet
will
more
plainelie
appeare
if
he
will
please
to
see
his
anser
to
Iewels
chalenge
the
3.
article
.
The
testimonie
of
Waldensis
is
vsed
by
Cassander
onely
to
proue
that
diuine
seruice
or
Masse
ought
to
be
pronounced
with
an
intelligible
voyce
that
the
people
may
anser
;
Amen
,
but
not
to
proue
that
the
publike
office
must
be
in
vulgar
language
,
and
so
it
is
impertinent
.
Honorius
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
page
193.
is
falsified
in
regarde
he
is
alledged
for
the
cause
of
the
alteration
of
the
ancient
custome
of
the
vse
of
seruice
in
a
knowne
tongue
.
For
that
author
speakes
not
a
word
of
the
vulgar
language
but
onely
of
the
secret
pronouncing
of
the
Canon
which
was
decreed
,
saith
he
,
(
I
knowe
not
howe
truely
)
by
occasion
of
a
strange
accident
which
happend
in
times
past
touching
that
matter
.
Vnde
sinodali
decreto
sub
anathemate
est
praeceptum
vt
nullus
Canonem
nisi
in
libro
&
in
sacris
vestibus
,
&
super
altare
,
&
super
sacrificium
legat
.
In
which
words
I
knowe
not
what
linx
except
our
Egleeyd
Humfrey
can
see
seruice
in
the
vulgar
tongue
.
Gretzer
is
abused
both
in
sense
and
wordes
.
In
sense
because
he
speakes
onely
of
the
Latin
tongue
and
of
that
time
when
it
was
either
vulgar
or
very
common
to
manie
nations
:
and
yet
the
knight
applyes
his
speech
to
proue
that
publike
seruice
ought
to
be
deliuered
in
the
vulgarly
knowne
tongue
of
euerie
nation
and
at
all
times
,
not
contenting
himselfe
with
lesse
then
this
.
In
wordes
he
doth
also
abuse
Gretzerus
,
for
that
he
cites
them
neither
intirely
nor
consequenter
in
English
,
omitting
or
at
the
least
altering
those
which
haue
relation
to
the
authors
precedent
sentence
,
to
wit
:
hinc
illae
exhortationes
&c.
hence
are
those
exhortations
of
the
Fathers
&c.
and
also
others
before
them
which
he
ought
to
haue
rehearsed
compleatly
because
they
are
to
the
same
purpose
.
I
will
put
the
whole
tenour
of
his
wordes
in
the
margen
that
the
reader
may
more
plainely
see
the
fraude
:
Presently
in
the
entrance
of
the
7.
Paragraph
Sir
Humfrey
pronounceth
a
very
sharpe
sentence
against
the
Councell
of
Trent
for
decreeing
that
due
honour
and
veneration
is
to
be
giuen
to
the
images
of
Christ
and
his
Saintes
,
condemning
it
for
a
wicked
and
blasphemous
opinion
.
Loe
heere
the
sentence
of
condemnation
,
which
is
to
be
iudged
so
much
the
more
rash
and
temerarious
in
respect
the
peremptorie
Iudge
leaueth
out
the
greater
part
of
the
doctrine
he
censureth
,
which
if
he
had
added
at
large
as
it
standeth
in
the
Councell
it
would
sufficiently
haue
iustified
it selfe
:
and
because
Sir
Humfrey
for
reasons
of
state
would
not
take
so
much
paines
,
I
will
doe
it
for
him
.
The
Councell
therefore
in
the
25.
Sess.
page
202.
decreeth
in
this
manner
,
The
images
of
Christ
the
Virgin
the
Mother
of
God
and
other
Saintes
are
cheifly
in
Churches
to
be
had
and
retained
,
and
due
honour
and
veneration
is
to
be
giuen
vnto
them
,
not
that
it
is
beleiued
there
is
in
them
any
diuinity
or
virtue
for
which
they
are
to
be
worshipped
,
or
that
any
thing
is
to
be
asked
of
them
,
or
that
confidence
is
to
be
put
in
them
,
as
in
times
past
the
Gentiles
did
who
put
their
trust
in
Idols
,
but
because
the
honour
which
is
exhibited
vnto
images
is
referred
vnto
the
Prototipes
which
they
represent
,
so
that
by
the
images
which
we
salute
,
and
before
which
we
vncouer
our
heads
and
kneele
,
we
adore
Christ
and
reuerence
the
Sainctes
whose
similitude
they
haue
,
that
which
by
the
decrees
of
councels
especially
of
the
second
Nicene
Synod
hath
binne
established
against
the
oppugners
of
images
,
thus
the
decree
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
;
in
which
we
finde
not
one
word
either
wicked
or
blasphemous
,
nay
rather
euery
word
soundeth
nothing
but
piety
and
religion
towards
Christ
and
his
Sainctes
,
whom
it
will
haue
honoured
not
only
in
themselues
but
also
in
and
by
their
images
,
which
manner
of
honour
as
it
is
declared
by
the
Councell
is
not
onely
not
contrary
to
scriptures
as
Sir
Humfrey
falsely
affirmeth
,
but
also
very
conformable
to
them
,
both
in
regard
the
scriptures
make
mention
of
honour
due
vnto
materiall
things
for
the
relation
of
representation
which
they
haue
to
God
or
other
his
holie
creatures
:
nor
yet
the
exteriour
signe
of
adoration
as
genuflection
,
or
inclination
of
the
bodie
,
is
giuen
to
the
image
itselfe
for
itselfe
and
to
remaine
in
it
,
but
rather
by
the
image
which
we
salute
,
or
before
which
wee
prostrate
our selues
,
the
same
signe
of
honour
is
transferred
ioyntelie
with
the
affection
of
the
mynde
to
the
thing
which
is
adored
.
Which
doctrine
is
both
so
cleare
in
itselfe
and
so
plainelie
declared
by
the
Councell
expreslie
teaching
that
the
honour
exhibited
vnto
them
is
referred
to
the
Paterne
,
It
is
true
I
knowe
the
reformers
vse
commonlie
to
alledge
for
their
denyall
of
honor
to
images
both
scripture
and
Fathers
as
also
Sir
Humfrey
doth
in
this
paragraffe
,
and
particularlie
they
vse
to
produce
the
wordes
of
that
which
they
call
the
second
cammaundement
,
to
wit
,
thou
shall
not
make
to
thy selfe
anie
grauen
image
.
But
touching
this
I
haue
showed
aboue
Now
touching
authorities
of
auncient
Fathers
he
confesseth
that
hee
for
beareth
to
cite
anie
in
particular
,
and
what
soeuer
he
falselie
pretendeth
,
the
true
reason
was
because
he
founde
none
to
cite
except
hee
had
produced
such
places
as
they
vse
onelie
against
the
idolatrie
of
Gentils
and
Ethnikes
as
,
True
it
is
hee
cites
diuers
authours
which
haue
writ
since
the
Councel
of
Francford
,
but
some
of
them
as
Agrippa
,
Erasmus
,
Cassander
&
Chemnitius
,
are
of
no
authority
with
vs
,
others
are
suspected
of
corruption
,
I
meane
to
haue
ben
corrupted
by
malignant
publishers
,
as
Polidor
Virgil
and
Agobardus
.
Others
are
impertinentlie
alledged
in
regarde
they
eyther
speake
onelie
of
the
image
of
God
himselfe
as
Philo
Iudeus
and
S.
Augustin
,
or
of
the
manner
of
worship
not
of
the
substance
of
the
honor
,
as
Peresius
Bellarmin
.
Wicelius
,
Hincmarus
:
for
that
they
eyther
onelie
condemne
the
adoration
of
pictures
takeing
the
word
adoration
for
that
kinde
of
honour
which
is
due
vnto
God
onelie
,
or
els
they
speake
onelie
of
the
priuate
errous
of
some
simple
people
:
of
which
sorte
is
Polidor
&
Biel
when
they
reprehend
the
abuses
and
superstitions
of
some
simple
people
,
who
out
of
ignorance
giue
more
honour
to
images
then
eyther
they
ought
to
doe
or
the
Church
alloweth
,
yet
doth
Polidor
expresselie
approue
of
due
honour
of
the
same
as
his
owne
wordes
declare
euen
in
those
places
where
he
vseth
that
reprehension
:
for
thus
he
saith
after
he
had
made
relation
of
diuers
images
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
mentioned
by
Eusebius
and
others
euen
in
the
most
primatiue
yeares
of
the
Church
.
Hence
therefore
grewe
the
vse
of
putting
in
Churches
and
honoring
as
well
the
statues
of
our
Sauiour
,
as
his
Saincts
.
And
he
adds
Ecquis
igitur
tam
dissolutus
tamque
audacia
praeditus
est
qui
velit
possitne
dubitare
seu
aliter
somniare
ne
dicam
sentire
vel
cogitare
de
imaginum
cultu
ac
demum
sit
tot
longe
Sanctissimorum
Patrum
decreto
constitutum
.
By
which
wordes
it
is
manifestly
conuinced
that
is
other
wordes
razed
by
order
of
the
Index
haue
either
beene
foisted
in
by
the
new
sectaries
,
to
wit
those
which
auerre
that
till
the
time
of
S.
Hierome
all
the
auncient
Fathers
reiected
worship
of
images
for
feare
of
idolatrie
;
or
els
he
meanes
onelie
that
they
durst
not
practice
the
same
least
their
action
might
seeme
idolatrous
either
to
the
ignorant
Gentils
,
or
to
such
as
were
then
latelie
conuerted
from
Gentilisme
and
as
yet
but
infirme
in
faith
,
and
easilie
scandalized
in
this
nature
.
All
which
neuerthelesse
cannot
possible
preiudice
the
doctrine
and
practice
of
the
Church
it selfe
in
generall
:
So
that
neither
anie
of
these
authours
seuerallie
nor
all
of
them
together
proue
that
absolutelie
to
honore
the
images
of
Christ
and
his
saints
is
wicked
or
blasphemous
,
which
is
the
assertion
the
knight
here
maintaines
;
and
yet
he
is
not
ashamed
to
call
their
testimonies
the
confession
of
his
aduersaries
,
among
which
also
that
his
impudencie
might
more
clearelie
appeare
,
he
foysteth
in
to
that
rancke
Bellarmin
and
Vasquez
,
which
authours
if
the
reader
be
not
ouer
grosselie
ignorant
he
will
easilie
perceiue
,
at
the
least
by
the
rest
of
their
workes
,
that
they
cannot
truelie
fauore
Sir
Humfreys
tenets
in
this
point
of
Controuersie
,
they
hauing
both
writ
professedly
of
it
against
the
reformers
doctrine
and
in
defense
of
the
practise
of
the
Roman
Church
touching
the
vse
and
honour
of
images
.
And
as
for
the
Emperours
Valens
and
Theodosius
whome
he
citeth
out
of
Crinitus
saying
they
made
proclamation
to
all
Christians
against
the
images
of
Christ
.
It
is
false
that
those
two
Emperours
euer
published
anie
decree
against
the
images
of
Christ
,
but
expresselie
in
honour
of
of
the
same
by
establishing
by
lawe
that
the
image
of
the
Crosse
of
Christ
should
not
be
framed
vpon
the
ground
,
as
vpon
the
stones
of
sepulchers
or
graues
where
it
might
easilie
be
prophaned
by
the
feet
of
those
that
passed
ouer
them
,
and
that
this
is
the
trueth
of
that
passage
of
those
two
Emperours
,
or
at
the
least
of
Theodosius
,
Crinitus
his
verie
wordes
would
haue
plainelie
declared
if
they
had
not
shrunke
in
the
wetting
I
meane
if
they
had
ben
intirelie
related
by
the
knight
who
is
not
the
first
that
hath
corrupted
the
tenour
of
Theodosius
his
lawe
by
leauing
out
the
worde
,
humi
,
vpon
the
grounde
for
the
wordes
of
the
foresaid
lawe
being
thes
,
let
not
the
Crosse
of
Christ
be
painted
vpon
the
grounde
,
or
some
such
like
,
by
leauing
out
the
wordes
,
vpon
the
grounde
,
the
sense
as
you
see
cometh
to
be
quite
contrarie
,
that
is
the
sense
falleth
out
to
be
this
,
let
not
the
Crosse
of
Christ
be
painted
,
which
trick
of
the
sectaries
was
discouered
long
since
by
Alanus
Copus
in
his
4.
Dialogue
the
11.
chap.
to
their
vtter
shame
and
discredit
.
And
yet
besides
this
,
I
maruell
greatelie
that
either
Sir
Humfrey
or
his
predecessours
offer
to
make
vse
of
the
foresaid
wordes
of
the
lawe
which
as
they
are
cited
by
him
are
so
generall
that
they
quite
condemne
the
practice
of
the
reformed
brothers
themselues
,
none
or
verie
few
of
them
being
as
yet
mounted
to
that
degree
of
puritie
as
expresselie
to
proclame
a
generall
lawe
against
the
pictures
of
Christ
as
not
to
be
painted
or
grauen
at
all
,
and
so
I
conclude
that
either
those
wordes
of
the
two
Emperours
are
to
be
read
as
the
Romanists
doe
vse
to
read
them
,
and
then
they
plainelie
prooue
the
reuerence
of
the
Crosse
to
haue
beene
practized
in
auncient
times
:
or
if
they
be
to
be
read
so
generallie
as
the
sectaries
will
haue
them
,
then
if
they
proue
anie
thing
,
they
doe
no
lesse
then
reproue
euen
the
Puritans
themselues
and
their
practice
in
that
particular
.
To
the
testimonie
of
Tertullian
whom
also
so
the
knight
produceth
l.
de
idolat
.
c.
5.
saying
.
Thou
hast
his
law
make
thou
no
image
.
And
presentlie
after
,
make
no
image
against
the
law
vnlesse
God
commaunde
the
as
he
did
moyses
:
I
answere
first
that
if
it
be
against
the
lawe
to
make
anie
image
at
all
,
then
be
these
wordes
of
Tertullian
as
much
against
the
reformers
as
the
Romanists
.
For
both
the
Church
of
England
and
all
the
Lutheran
Churches
at
the
least
,
make
both
the
images
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
.
And
I
know
a
famous
Puritan
I
meane
a
pure
Caluinist
(
whose
name
is
Daniell
Chamier
)
who
expresselie
defendes
that
images
are
not
absolutelie
prohibited
by
that
precept
which
he
calleth
the
second
commaundement
,
Wherefore
I
answere
secondlie
that
Tertullian
speakes
onelie
against
idolatrous
images
,
or
Idols
,
as
the
verie
argument
of
his
booke
doth
shewe
,
which
is
intituled
against
idolatrie
not
against
Christian
images
,
as
is
manifestlie
conuinced
out
of
an
other
worke
of
his
,
Tot
a
die
ad
hanc
partem
zelus
fidei
perorabit
ingemens
Christianum
ab
idolis
in
Ecclesiam
venire
,
de
aduersaria
officina
in
domum
Dei
.
The
zeale
of
faith
will
plead
all
the
day
long
on
this
side
lamenting
a
Christian
to
come
from
idols
into
the
Church
,
from
the
aduerse
officine
in
to
the
house
of
God
.
And
a
little
after
:
to
reach
those
handes
to
the
bodie
of
our
Lord
,
which
giue
bodies
to
deuils
.
The
same
I
say
of
Origen
cited
out
of
Cassander
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
whome
they
both
abuse
in
that
they
vse
his
testimonie
against
the
veneration
of
images
in
the
primatiue
Church
.
For
I
haue
diligently
read
his
7.
booke
cited
by
them
wher
I
finde
him
to
speake
much
against
idols
but
nothing
against
Christian
images
his
wordes
are
these
.
Illarum
enim
gentium
nemo
ab
his
alienus
est
quod
vereatur
numen
ob
viles
has
ceremonias
detrahere
quae
versantur
circa
aras
&
materias
effigiatas
varijs
imaginibus
,
nec
quod
intelligat
daemonas
inhaerere
certis
locis
&
statuis
siue
incantatos
quibusdam
magicis
carminibus
siue
alios
incubantes
locis
semel
praeoccupatis
vbi
lurconum
more
se
oblectant
victimarum
nidoribus
voluptatem
captantes
nefariam
&
vetitam
diuinis
atque
naturae
legibus
.
Caeterum
Christiani
homines
&
Iudaei
sibi
temperant
abhis
propter
illud
legis
:
Dominum
Deum
tuum
timebis
&
ipsi
soli
seruices
.
Et
propterillud
non
erunt
tibi
dij
alienipraeter
me
,
&
non
facies
tibi
simulachrum
nec
vllam
effigiem
&c.
Non
adorabis
ea
neque
seruies
illis
.
Aliaque
multa
his
similia
quae
adeo
nos
prohibent
ab
aris
&
simulachris
vt
etiam
emori
iubeant
citiùs
quam
cotaminemus
nostram
de
Deo
fidem
talibus
impietatibus
.
Et
postea
.
Liquet
enim
haec
dedicari
ab
hominibus
falsam
de
Deo
opinionem
habentibus
.
For
none
of
those
nationes
is
free
from
these
things
because
they
feare
to
dishonore
the
diuine
power
in
respect
of
thes
vile
ceremonies
which
are
vsed
before
the
altars
,
and
tables
carued
with
diuers
images
:
For
that
they
neyther
vnderstand
that
deuils
inhabit
in
certaine
places
,
and
statues
either
inchaunted
by
certaine
magicall
verses
,
or
others
lying
in
places
once
preoccupated
,
where
they
delite
themselues
life
gulliguts
with
the
sauore
of
the
sacrifices
,
taking
nefarious
delyte
prohibited
both
by
diuine
lawes
,
and
the
lawes
of
nature
.
But
Christians
and
Iewes
temper
themselues
from
these
for
that
of
the
lawe
:
Thou
shalt
feare
thy
lord
God
,
and
shalt
serue
him
alone
.
And
for
that
.
Thou
shalt
not
haue
strange
Gods
besides
mee
.
And.
Thou
shalt
not
make
to
thy selfe
anie
semblance
,
or
anielikenes
&c.
Thou
shalt
not
adore
them
nor
serue
them
.
them
,
and
manie
o
her
things
like
to
these
which
so
debarre
vs
from
altars
,
&
likenesses
,
that
they
commaunde
vs
sooner
to
dye
them
to
contaminate
our
faith
of
God
with
such
impieties
.
And
afterwardes
he
addes
.
It
is
cleare
that
these
things
are
dedicated
by
men
which
haue
a
false
opinion
of
God
&c.
Thus
origen
aboute
the
end
.
By
whose
owne
wordes
the
reader
may
euidentlie
perceiue
,
he
discourseth
onelie
against
the
images
and
altars
of
false
Gods
.
Which
authors
wordes
I
did
therefore
so
largely
relate
that
he
himselfe
might
demonstrate
howe
much
he
is
abused
both
by
Cassander
and
Sir
Humfrey
touching
this
matter
.
And
indeed
I
haue
often
times
much
wondered
to
see
the
great
stupiditie
of
the
sectaries
in
this
point
,
and
especiallie
the
most
learned
sorte
of
them
,
in
they
be
either
so
sotishlie
ignorant
or
so
Iewishlie
superstitious
and
blind
,
that
they
are
not
able
to
distinguish
betweene
the
honour
which
Christians
giue
to
the
picture
of
Christ
true
God
and
man
,
and
the
worship
which
the
Gentils
giue
to
the
images
of
their
imaginarie
and
counterfeit
Gods
.
Not
ceasing
either
in
their
sermons
or
ordinarie
discourses
to
compare
most
grosselie
the
one
with
the
other
,
and
to
pronounce
sentence
of
idolatrie
against
them
both
a
like
,
and
applying
most
absurdelie
vnto
the
condemnation
of
the
reuerence
which
the
Romanists
vsuallie
practise
towardes
the
foresaid
images
of
Christ
and
his
saincts
those
same
sentences
of
scripture
and
Fathers
which
by
them
were
onelie
spoken
against
the
pernicious
errour
of
the
Pagans
,
whereas
in
truth
there
is
as
much
distance
betwixt
the
one
and
the
other
as
there
is
betwene
Heauen
and
earth
,
God
and
the
deuill
,
Christ
and
Belial
.
the
person
represented
by
the
picture
of
Christ
being
both
capable
and
worthie
of
honour
,
but
the
persons
represented
by
the
images
of
the
false
gods
being
neither
capable
nor
worthie
of
worship
as
being
either
wicked
men
or
plaine
deuills
.
And
moreouer
,
the
honour
exhibited
to
the
picture
of
Christ
being
not
giuen
to
the
picture
for
the
picture
or
by
the
picture
itselfe
I
meane
nor
without
relation
to
the
Prototipe
,
nor
yet
in
the
picture
permanentlie
,
but
rather
to
the
Prototipe
in
and
by
meanes
of
the
picture
or
by
the
picture
transitorilie
:
not
much
vnlike
to
an
arowe
or
darte
which
altho'
it
passeth
by
the
ayre
and
in
the
ayre
,
yet
doth
it
not
stay
there
but
in
the
marke
onelie
:
whereas
one
the
contrarie
the
Gentils
went
grosselie
to
worke
,
for
the
honour
which
they
gaue
to
the
statues
and
figures
of
their
Gods
the
same
they
gaue
to
the
images
themselues
by
themselues
and
for
them selues
attributing
diuinitie
,
or
at
the
least
diuine
operations
vnto
them
,
and
adoring
them
with
actions
of
honour
proper
to
the
true
God
alone
as
sacrifices
,
and
the
like
,
all
which
is
so
farre
different
not
onely
from
the
practice
,
but
also
from
the
cogitations
of
anie
Christian
man
,
that
it
can
be
esteemed
no
lesse
then
most
grosse
ignorance
in
the
reformers
to
bring
it
in
question
.
And
altho'
it
is
true
that
the
leight
of
nature
onely
is
not
sufficient
to
establish
the
honour
of
images
which
the
Councell
of
Trent
decreed
as
the
knight
doth
captiously
inferre
out
of
the
wordes
of
a
moderne
diuine
whom
he
citeth
:
neuerthelesse
the
leight
of
nature
doth
sufficiently
teach
vs
the
difference
betweene
true
and
idolatrous
worship
of
images
,
and
doth
also
plainely
dictate
vnto
vs
that
those
are
both
ignorantly
blinde
who
are
not
able
to
conceiue
it
,
and
temerarious
and
rash
who
not
being
able
to
conceiue
it
,
condemne
it
as
contrary
to
the
lawe
of
God
,
our
as
sectarie
commonly
doe
.
And
thus
much
for
the
answere
to
the
testimonie
of
Tertullian
and
to
shewe
that
antiquity
is
neither
for
the
reformers
nor
against
the
Romanists
in
this
matter
,
as
the
knight
doeth
vanely
indeuour
to
prooue
,
but
expressely
for
them
in
regard
that
as
I
haue
shewed
out
of
the
same
authour
euen
in
those
most
pure
and
primatiue
times
ther
was
vse
of
the
picture
of
Christ
,
yea
and
of
a
grauen
image
(
which
is
that
the
reformers
most
directly
impugne
and
exclaime
against
)
and
that
euen
in
the
chalices
where
of
necessitie
it
must
needs
haue
beene
honoured
,
the
same
authour
further
affirming
that
the
foresaid
image
was
much
vsed
in
his
time
being
the
second
hundreth
yeare
after
Christ
our
Sauiour
when
idolatrie
was
not
yet
extinguished
,
which
is
an
argument
conuincing
that
it
was
not
a
thing
then
first
inuented
but
long
before
established
,
nor
offensiue
to
the
most
sincere
and
intire
Christians
of
those
prime
ages
as
nowe
it
is
to
the
Nyce
nouelists
of
our
dayes
,
many
of
which
are
so
superstitiously
precise
that
,
as
an
honest
Protestant
writer
affirmeth
,
And
if
they
demaunde
scriptures
of
vs
besides
that
which
I
alledged
before
,
we
may
truely
answere
them
as
a
graue
diuine
in
the
seuenth
Synod
answered
the
heretikes
of
that
time
.
If
they
aske
vs
(
saith
he
)
in
what
place
of
scripture
we
read
that
the
picture
of
Christ
is
to
be
honoured
,
we
answere
that
there
where
we
read
that
Christ
himselfe
is
to
be
honoured
.
And
if
nowe
the
reformers
demaunde
of
vs
what
reason
we
haue
for
the
honour
of
the
images
of
Christ
and
his
Saincts
:
we
may
answer
them
that
we
haue
the
same
reason
that
they
haue
to
honore
the
image
of
their
King
or
his
dearest
fauorits
.
For
as
in
ciuill
honour
,
to
respect
or
honore
the
Kings
picture
,
doth
not
diminish
the
honour
due
vnto
the
King
himselfe
,
but
increaseth
it
so
it
passeth
in
the
worship
of
the
image
of
Christ
,
and
if
the
Puritans
deny
this
,
there
we
leaue
them
as
guiltie
of
treason
against
God
and
man
.
And
now
here
before
I
conclude
I
must
of
necessitie
aduertice
the
reader
of
such
abuses
as
Sir
Humfrey
hath
committed
in
his
citations
of
some
of
the
authours
he
produceth
in
this
place
.
Wherefore
in
the
first
place
I
put
the
two
councells
he
alledgeth
as
being
as
I
suppose
of
greatest
authoritie
in
our
aduersaries
conceipte
.
The
one
is
the
Councell
of
Francford
which
because
it
is
corruptedlie
rehearsed
by
Chemintius
,
we
may
iustelie
disclame
from
it
,
if
ther
were
no
other
reason
.
Yet
Sir
Humfrey
knowes
besides
this
that
the
Romanists
hould
that
councell
for
illegitimate
.
As
for
the
Councell
of
Eliberis
,
it
is
not
absolutelie
reiected
by
Romanists
,
yet
they
knowe
it
was
but
Prouinciall
consisting
of
19.
Bishops
which
whatsoeuer
they
defined
in
this
matter
which
as
yet
is
vncertaine
,
yet
could
it
not
be
anie
Generall
doctrine
or
practise
for
the
vniuersall
Church
,
but
at
the
most
for
their
owne
whole
Countrye
as
the
circunstances
of
that
time
,
and
place
required
.
But
of
what
authoritie
soeuer
they
were
,
neither
of
those
two
councels
condemned
the
adoration
of
images
as
it
is
vnderstanded
and
vsed
in
the
Roman
Church
,
for
vnlawfull
and
much
lesse
for
wicked
and
blasphemous
as
the
knight
here
contendes
:
but
if
they
truely
condemned
anie
worship
of
images
,
it
was
onelie
diuine
not
honorarie
worship
they
condemned
,
and
so
they
neither
of
them
preiudicate
the
antiquitie
and
vniuersalitie
of
the
Roman
doctrine
in
this
point
,
and
much
lesse
doe
they
establish
the
antiquitie
or
vniuersalitie
of
the
misreformed
Churches
,
which
for
the
most
parte
will
not
suffer
anie
images
either
painted
or
vnpainted
to
appeare
in
their
sinagoge
,
either
vpon
walles
or
windowes
.
And
yet
besides
this
,
it
is
well
knowne
the
Councell
of
Nyce
as
consisting
both
of
Latin
and
Grecian
Fathers
,
was
much
more
generall
then
either
the
Francfordian
or
Eliberitan
Sinod
;
and
in
the
Nycene
it
is
certaine
that
the
honor
of
Images
was
defended
,
and
established
,
as
our
aduersarie
not
vnwillinglie
confesse
,
and
the
decrees
of
it
plainelie
testifie
;
wher
as
in
the
other
two
it
remaines
doubtfull
and
ambiguous
euen
till
this
day
what
was
truely
deliuered
in
them
touching
this
point
,
ther
being
onelie
some
certaine
fragments
of
them
extant
touching
this
matter
:
out
of
all
which
incertaintie
it
is
plaine
that
no
assured
antiquitie
or
vniuersalitie
can
be
extracted
for
Sir
Humfreys
cause
.
In
the
citation
of
Clemang
is
he
takes
onely
that
which
seemed
most
for
his
purpose
,
and
couninglie
left
out
that
which
makes
against
him
:
First
he
relates
the
decree
of
the
Tridentine
Councell
Sess.
25.
yet
in
a
some
thing
different
manner
then
it
runneth
there
.
But
the
true
tenour
of
it
is
this
in
substance
:
that
whereas
by
Christ
the
power
of
Indulgences
was
graunted
to
the
Church
&
that
shee
hath
vsed
that
power
deliuered
vnto
her
by
diuine
ordinance
euen
in
the
most
auncient
times
,
the
sacred
Synod
doth
teach
and
commaunde
that
the
vse
of
them
as
verie
prositable
to
Christian
people
,
&
approued
by
the
authoritie
of
sacred
Councells
ought
to
be
retayned
,
and
doth
condemne
those
with
a
curse
who
either
affirme
them
to
be
vnlawfull
,
or
denie
that
there
is
in
the
Church
authoritie
to
graunt
them
:
this
is
the
true
tenour
of
the
decree
which
Sir
Humfrey
hath
not
so
sincerelie
rehearsed
as
he
ought
to
haue
done
,
which
whether
he
did
it
to
aduantage
his
cause
or
onelie
out
of
an
ill
custome
he
hath
gotte
by
his
frequent
exercise
of
such
trickes
in
diuers
places
of
his
booke
,
I
knowe
not
;
onelie
of
this
I
ame
sure
,
that
he
produceth
nothing
of
anie
force
for
the
impugnation
of
it
in
all
his
paragraffe
,
notwithstanding
he
bouldlie
auerreth
that
it
will
be
founde
(
I
knowe
not
where
)
that
neither
Christ
nor
the
primatiue
Fathers
euer
knew
,
much
lesse
euer
exercised
such
pardons
as
are
nowe
daylie
practized
in
the
Church
of
Rome
.
this
he
affirmeth
most
stronglie
,
but
proueth
his
affirmation
so
weakely
that
its
hard
to
iudge
whether
his
temeritie
in
affirming
,
or
his
defectiuenesse
in
prouing
that
which
he
affirmeth
,
be
more
excessiue
,
how
be
it
most
certaine
it
is
that
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
can
be
iustified
,
for
that
if
he
had
vsed
the
least
circumspection
in
the
world
,
he
might
haue
founde
not
onelie
in
Bellarmin
,
and
other
diuines
but
also
in
the
Councell
of
Trent
which
he
citeth
,
mention
both
of
scripture
&
Fathers
copiouslie
cited
&
quoted
for
the
proofe
both
of
the
power
and
vse
of
Indulgences
in
the
Church
from
time
to
time
,
of
which
as
it
seemes
he
durst
not
take
anie
notice
,
but
passed
it
ouer
in
silence
,
to
the
ende
his
greate
wordes
which
he
vttered
in
the
beginning
might
carie
a
fairer
colour
of
trueth
,
which
other
wise
would
presentlie
haue
discouered
themselues
to
be
false
.
True
it
is
he
describeth
one
kinde
of
mitigation
or
relaxation
of
punisshment
imposed
vpon
offenders
for
denyall
of
their
faith
,
or
sacrificing
to
idols
,
which
he
graunteth
to
haue
beene
called
by
the
name
of
pardon
or
Indulgence
,
and
to
haue
beene
deriued
from
sainct
Paule
who
released
the
incestuous
Corinthian
from
the
bonde
of
excomunication
,
all
which
tho'
it
be
true
in
itselfe
,
yet
is
it
but
an
euasion
which
he
vseth
to
the
end
he
may
with
greater
colour
reiect
those
pardons
which
are
truelie
and
properlie
Indulgences
that
is
a
relaxation
from
a
temporall
punishment
due
vnto
a
penitent
sinner
according
to
Gods
iustice
for
satisfaction
of
the
paine
of
his
offenses
alreadie
remitted
touching
the
guilt
and
eternall
punishment
of
the
same
,
by
vertue
of
the
keyes
,
that
is
by
the
power
of
bynding
and
loosing
sinnes
which
Christ
gaue
to
his
Church
,
and
in
her
particularlie
to
the
cheefe
visible
pastour
thereof
.
Of
the
power
and
practize
of
which
Kynde
of
pardon
,
if
Sir
Humfrey
had
not
beene
disposed
to
cogge
,
he
might
haue
found
good
store
of
testimonies
both
out
of
scriptures
,
Councells
,
and
Fathers
alledged
for
the
same
by
Roman
diuines
.
And
as
for
scriptures
there
are
two
places
especiallie
which
doe
plainelie
enuffe
conuince
the
foresaid
truth
of
Indulgences
if
they
be
reight
vnderstanded
according
to
the
interpretation
of
the
auncient
Fathers
.
The
one
is
that
generall
sentence
of
our
Sauiour
Math.
18.
in
which
he
giueth
an
illimitated
power
to
his
Apostles
and
in
them
to
their
lawfull
successours
for
binding
and
loosing
without
anie
restriction
either
to
this
or
that
one
matter
,
or
to
this
or
that
manner
of
remission
,
and
consequentlie
in
that
most
generall
power
is
included
the
authoritie
of
remitting
the
temporall
punishment
due
to
sinnes
which
is
that
we
call
the
power
of
Indulgences
of
which
generall
power
graunted
to
Preists
we
haue
diuers
testimonies
of
Fathers
and
particularlie
of
S.
Aug.
who
vpon
those
wordes
&
iudicium
datum
est
Apoc.
20.
Sayth
:
Non
hoc
putandum
est
de
vltimo
Iudicio
dici
,
sed
sedes
Praepositorum
est
,
&
ipsi
Praepositi
intelligendi
sunt
per
quos
Ecclesia
nunc
gubernatur
.
Iudicium
autem
datum
nullum
melius
accipiendum
videtur
quam
id
quod
dictum
est
:
quae
ligaueritis
in
terra
ligata
erunt
&
in
Caelo
:
&
quae
solueritis
in
terra
soluta
erunt
&
in
Caelo
.
Deus
distinctionem
non
facit
qui
misericordiam
suam
promisit
omnibus
,
&
relaxandi
licentiam
Sacerdotibus
suis
fine
vlla
exceptione
concessit
.
God
,
saith
S.
Ambrose
,
makes
no
distinstion
,
who
promised
his
mercie
to
all
,
&
gaue
to
his
Preists
licence
to
release
without
anie
exception
.
Neyther
can
anie
reason
be
assigned
why
the
pastours
of
the
Church
should
haue
power
to
applie
the
merits
of
the
passion
of
Christ
for
remission
of
the
guilt
of
the
sinnes
themselues
with
the
eternall
paine
and
yet
not
haue
power
to
applie
the
same
for
the
remission
of
the
temporall
punishment
as
due
vnto
them
,
after
the
remission
according
to
the
order
of
Gods
iustice
,
as
the
eternall
punishment
was
due
before
it
,
especiallie
considering
that
the
temporall
paine
as
being
farre
inferiour
in
nature
and
qualitie
to
the
sinne
itselfe
,
it
requires
much
lesse
power
and
fewer
conditions
for
its
remission
then
doth
the
guilt
of
the
sinne
and
eternall
paine
to
the
guilt
annexed
.
The
other
place
of
scripture
is
not
onelie
for
the
proofe
of
the
power
to
graunt
Indulgences
,
but
also
of
the
practice
of
the
same
by
S.
Paule
himselfe
the
2.
chapter
of
the
second
epistle
to
the
Corinth
.
where
speaking
to
the
same
Corinthians
,
he
sayth
of
himselfe
:
And
whome
you
haue
pardoned
anie
thing
,
I
also
.
For
,
my selfe
also
that
which
I
pardoned
,
if
I
pardoned
anie
thing
,
for
you
in
the
person
of
Christ
that
we
be
not
circumuented
of
Satam
.
Which
wordes
altho'
they
be
obscure
in
the
Gramaticall
construction
,
yet
doe
they
sufficientlie
declare
those
partes
and
conditions
which
are
found
in
such
Indulgences
as
are
now
practiced
in
the
Roman
Church
that
is
to
say
power
in
the
collator
or
giuer
,
pietie
in
the
cause
,
and
grace
in
the
receiuer
.
S.
Paule
sheweth
his
authoritie
in
that
he
affirmeth
he
gaue
perdon
to
the
incestuous
Corinthian
in
the
person
of
Christ
that
is
by
authoritie
from
him
receiued
:
he
sheweth
the
cause
to
haue
beene
the
common
profit
of
the
Corinthians
themselues
,
to
wit
least
they
should
be
circumuented
by
the
deuill
so
that
they
in
the
like
occasion
might
fall
in
to
desperation
by
ouer
much
rigour
as
the
incestuous
man
might
haue
done
if
he
had
not
beene
pardoned
in
the
performance
of
some
parte
of
the
punishment
due
to
his
offense
.
Lastelie
he
in
the
precedent
wordes
sheweth
the
receiuer
to
haue
beene
in
the
state
of
grace
in
that
he
signifieth
his
sorowe
and
pennance
to
haue
beene
so
great
that
he
was
readie
to
haue
beene
swalowed
vp
by
the
excesse
of
it
.
And
so
by
this
we
may
perceiue
howe
deceitfullie
Sir
Humfrey
proceedeth
in
his
220.
page
where
he
insinuateth
that
S.
Paule
in
the
place
now
cited
did
onelie
release
the
incestuous
Corinthian
from
the
bonde
of
excomunication
,
whereas
indeede
the
Apostle
did
not
onelie
that
,
but
also
did
absolue
him
from
that
temporall
punishment
&
affliction
in
which
if
he
had
pleased
he
might
haue
constreined
him
to
continue
longer
,
and
so
supplyed
by
his
authoritatiue
and
suffragatorie
pardon
that
parte
of
satisfaction
which
otherwise
remained
to
haue
beene
performed
by
the
continuation
of
the
punishment
imposed
and
due
to
the
penitent
according
to
the
exaction
of
Gods
iustice
,
he
supplyed
it
I
saie
by
application
of
the
merits
or
satisfactions
of
Christ
,
which
application
also
,
and
not
onelie
the
authoritie
by
which
sainct
Paule
did
it
,
is
included
in
those
wordes
,
in
the
person
of
Christ
.
Donauit
Corintho
peccatum
per
paenitentiam
.
And
a
little
after
:
Etenim
qui
de
remittenda
praedicauit
paenitentia
,
debuit
&
de
ijs
qui
iterandum
putant
Baptismum
non
silere
.
By
which
testimonies
of
these
two
most
famous
and
auncient
authours
Sir
Humfreys
euasion
saying
that
the
Apostle
did
onelie
free
the
incestuous
Corinthian
from
the
bond
of
Excommunication
,
doth
euidentlie
appeare
to
be
false
&
friuolous
.
And
thus
we
see
that
not
onelie
the
relaxation
of
a
punishment
enioyned
,
as
the
knight
would
haue
it
,
but
also
the
same
or
very
like
forme
of
pardon
which
the
Roman
Church
vseth
at
this
present
tyme
,
was
practiced
by
S.
Paule
himselfe
in
the
foresayd
case
.
And
in
trueth
supposing
at
the
least
certaine
receiued
maximes
of
diuinitie
which
might
easily
be
demonstrated
by
scriptures
if
the
place
did
serue
for
it
:
to
wit
that
after
the
guilt
of
sinne
is
remitted
,
some
temporall
punishment
remaineth
which
according
to
the
exigence
of
iustice
must
be
remoueed
before
the
soule
can
attaine
to
perfect
blessednesse
,
either
by
iust
indurance
or
mercifull
remission
:
and
more
ouer
that
the
same
temporall
affliction
which
many
suffer
in
this
life
euen
after
their
sinnes
be
intirelie
remitted
,
is
not
for
correction
and
commination
onely
(
as
the
sectaries
doe
friuolouslie
contend
)
as
appeareth
plainelie
in
the
example
of
Dauid
who
altho'
he
knewe
from
the
mouth
of
a
Prophet
that
the
guilt
of
his
adultry
was
pardoned
,
yet
vnderstanding
neuerthelesse
by
the
same
Prophet
that
ther
remained
no
smale
punishment
behinde
to
wit
no
lesse
then
the
death
of
his
dearest
child
,
and
that
as
the
scripture
it selfe
testifieth
neither
for
correction
nor
commination
onely
,
but
because
by
his
scandalous
action
he
had
caused
the
enimies
of
God
to
blaspheme
his
name
and
as
the
text
declareth
in
the
2.
Booke
of
the
Kings
the
12.
chapter
,
propter
verbum
hoc
that
is
for
this
thy
fact
taking
word
for
action
as
it
is
most
frequently
taken
in
the
scriptures
:
and
yet
besides
all
this
the
same
Dauid
did
voluntarie
pennance
composing
the
whole
miserere
Psalme
and
crying
out
with
an
amplius
laua
for
a
perpetuall
testimony
of
the
same
.
And
now
supposing
as
I
say
all
this
,
the
doctrine
&
practice
of
Indulgences
now
vsed
by
the
cheefe
Pastours
of
the
Roman
Church
is
so
well
grounded
that
except
onely
in
those
in
whom
obstinacie
reigneth
more
then
reason
,
it
admitteth
no
trergiuersation
in
the
credibilitie
and
faith
of
it
.
For
as
God
is
infinitly
not
onely
iust
but
also
mercifull
in
himselfe
by
essence
,
so
hath
he
communicated
to
the
gouernours
of
his
church
a
kind
of
participatiue
mixture
of
both
those
attributes
betweene
which
according
to
that
of
the
psalme
iustitia
&
pax
osculatae
sunt
,
he
hath
made
a
most
louing
league
to
the
end
that
according
to
diuers
causes
and
occasions
his
spirituall
officers
may
so
vse
them
in
earth
as
the
vse
may
be
approued
in
Heauen
,
sometimes
vsing
rigour
of
discipline
for
the
satisfaction
of
Gods
iustice
,
other
times
lenity
for
the
exercise
of
his
mercy
.
But
now
touching
the
confirmation
of
this
doctrine
by
the
authority
of
Fathers
I
will
onely
produce
the
testimonies
of
Tertull.
and
S.
Cyprian
who
being
both
so
ancient
as
they
are
knowne
to
be
,
they
may
iustely
serue
for
sufficient
witnesses
of
the
ancient
practice
of
the
same
in
those
primatiue
times
.
Tertullian
therefore
in
his
booke
to
the
Martirs
and
first
chapter
speaketh
of
the
remission
of
the
paine
due
to
sinnes
which
the
Bishops
gaue
vnto
the
sinners
either
at
the
petition
of
martyrs
,
or
for
other
causes
,
calling
it
by
the
name
of
peace
.
Which
peace
faith
he
some
that
haue
it
not
in
the
Church
are
accustomed
to
aske
it
of
the
martyrs
in
prision
,
and
therefore
you
also
(
meaning
the
Bishops
)
ought
for
that
cause
to
haue
,
norish
,
and
keepe
it
in
your selues
to
the
end
that
if
perhaps
you
may
communicate
it
to
others
.
where
Tertullian
by
the
worde
peace
vnderstandes
the
Bishops
absolution
at
the
least
frome
some
parte
of
the
sinners
pennance
by
application
of
the
superabundant
satisfactions
of
the
martyrs
which
application
is
also
in
the
worde
peace
included
,
as
manifestly
may
be
gathered
out
of
the
same
Tertullian
,
who
afterwardes
falling
in
to
heresie
in
his
22.
chap.
of
his
booke
of
chastitie
recalled
that
which
he
had
tought
before
,
to
wit
that
indult
could
not
be
giuen
to
those
that
had
fallen
,
at
the
petition
of
the
martyrs
,
because
saith
he
(
now
turned
Heretike
)
there
remaine
no
satisfactions
of
martyrs
,
(
which
satisfactions
hee
calleth
oleum
faculae
)
which
can
suffice
for
themselues
&
others
.
All
which
as
the
reader
may
clearelie
perceiue
is
nothing
els
in
substance
but
such
an
Indulgence
as
is
now
practiced
by
the
Bishops
of
Rome
,
of
whome
and
others
by
their
comission
,
the
foresayd
authour
doth
speake
in
the
place
rehearsed
.
And
the
same
saith
S.
Cyprian
in
his
last
Sermon
de
lapsis
saith
,
paenitenti
,
operanti
,
roganti
,
potest
clementer
ignoscere
,
potest
in
acceptum
referre
quicquid
pro
talibus
&
petierint
martyres
,
&
fecerint
Sacerdotes
.
To
the
working
or
laboring
penitent
(
the
Bishop
of
whome
he
speaketh
as
I
suppose
)
may
clemently
pardon
,
&
accept
as
receiued
whatsoeuer
the
martyrs
demaunde
,
&
the
Preists
doe
,
or
performe
.
And
the
like
the
same
S.
Cyp.
hath
l.
3.
epist.
15.
or
11.
I
omit
Sainct
Gregorie
whome
yet
both
S.
Thom.
and
Atisiodorus
his
predecessour
testifie
to
haue
graunted
Indulgences
in
forme
,
which
altho'
it
is
not
founde
in
his
workes
now
extant
,
yet
it
is
farre
more
credible
,
and
certaine
that
those
two
authours
would
not
haue
vsed
that
testimonie
with
out
infalible
grounde
that
it
was
S.
Gregories
,
then
that
it
was
feigned
because
kemnitius
and
other
nouellists
reiect
it
as
suppositious
.
And
if
they
will
not
admit
of
this
testimonie
because
they
see
it
not
.
At
the
least
they
must
of
necessitie
admit
of
that
which
being
yet
more
auncient
is
to
be
seeme
in
the
Chappell
of
S.
Crosse
of
Hierusalem
in
Rome
written
in
legible
letters
,
that
S.
Siluester
who
was
Bishop
&
Pope
aboue
1200.
years
paste
did
consecrate
that
Chappell
and
adorne
it
with
maine
reliquies
of
saints
and
indulted
diuers
perdons
to
the
visiters
of
it
.
I
could
alsoe
cite
the
Popes
which
since
the
time
of
S.
Greg.
in
seuerall
ages
haue
very
frequentlie
graunted
Indulgences
,
but
because
I
knowe
our
presumptuous
aduersaries
contemne
their
authority
(
tho'
iniustlie
for
that
they
haue
ben
of
as
great
authoritie
as
their
anticessours
)
I
will
saue
the
labour
,
and
onely
aduertice
the
reader
that
ther
is
farre
greater
reason
for
a
prudent
man
to
giue
credit
vnto
them
in
the
affirmatiue
of
this
question
then
there
is
to
rely
vpon
the
authoritie
of
the
sectaries
for
the
negation
,
in
regard
that
euen
by
their
owne
confession
the
affirmatiue
hath
ben
tought
and
practiced
publikelie
in
the
Christian
world
at
the
least
for
the
space
of
400.
years
euen
according
to
Kemnitius
,
who
(
tho'
most
falsely
for
that
it
may
be
proued
That
Leo
the
third
who
liued
in
the
8.
or
9.
hundreth
yeare
gaue
pardons
according
to
the
manner
of
those
our
times
)
affirmeth
that
Indulgences
began
aboute
the
yeare
1200.
who
neuertelesse
on
the
contrary
contradicting
himselfe
graunteth
that
the
first
denyers
of
the
same
were
the
Waldenses
,
a
company
of
pore
ignorant
beggarlie
fellowes
.
From
whence
we
may
inferre
how
impudentlie
the
kinght
affirmeth
antiquitie
&
vniuersalitie
in
his
owne
Church
for
the
denyall
of
Indulgences
,
yet
dinying
the
same
in
the
Church
of
Rome
for
her
defence
of
them
:
supposing
he
could
not
produce
as
much
as
one
authour
either
more
or
lesse
auncient
for
the
negatiue
parte
liuing
before
the
pore
men
of
lions
,
who
hauing
no
other
saint
for
their
founder
then
one
waldo
a
verie
idiot
,
appeared
aboute
the
yeare
of
our
Lord
1170.
that
is
manie
hundreths
of
yeares
after
Indulgences
had
beene
practized
in
the
Christian
world
euen
according
to
the
forme
now
vsed
.
It
is
true
Sir
Humfrey
alledgeth
diuers
Roman
diuines
as
he
vseth
to
doe
,
but
it
is
but
a
meere
shift
he
vseth
to
colour
his
position
as
being
destitute
of
all
other
auncient
authoritie
&
proofe
.
For
I
haue
examined
those
authours
&
I
finde
there
is
not
one
of
them
which
is
not
a
zelous
defender
both
of
the
power
which
Christ
gaue
vnto
the
Church
to
graunt
Indulgences
,
&
also
of
the
lawfullnes
&
profit
of
them
;
nor
doth
anie
one
of
them
confesse
the
want
of
antiquitie
&
consent
of
the
same
:
but
some
of
them
onelie
confesse
indeed
there
is
no
certainetie
of
their
beginning
,
or
when
the
vse
of
them
came
into
the
Church
in
the
manner
they
are
now
vsed
.
To
which
purpose
the
testimonie
cited
out
of
B.
Fisher
may
seeme
to
serue
,
who
yet
doth
not
say
(
as
the
knight
falselie
relates
)
that
it
is
not
sufficientlie
manifest
from
whome
Indulgences
had
their
Originall
,
but
he
onelie
sayth
non
certo
constare
a
quo
primum
tradi
caeperunt
,
that
it
is
not
certainelie
apparent
who
first
began
to
giue
them
.
And
altho'
that
author
hath
the
rest
of
the
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
cites
,
yet
hath
he
others
in
the
same
place
which
doe
sufficientlie
declare
his
meaning
in
that
manner
of
speech
;
for
he
presentlie
addes
that
S.
Gregorie
is
sayde
to
haue
graunted
Indulgences
,
&
they
saye
(
saith
he
)
that
there
was
some
most
auncient
vse
of
them
among
the
Romans
which
the
stations
of
the
Citie
,
giue
vs
to
vnderstand
.
And
hence
it
is
that
the
same
Bishop
in
the
same
place
turning
his
speach
to
Luther
his
aduersarie
,
sayth
vnto
him
,
wherefore
thou
art
a
meere
imposter
,
or
deceiuer
of
the
people
,
not
the
Popes
to
whome
(
in
this
point
of
Indulgences
)
both
the
Gospell
fauoreth
,
and
a
generall
Councell
subscribes
,
&
also
the
vniuersal
companie
of
moderne
interpreters
vpon
those
wordes
of
Christ
math.
16.
whatsoeuer
you
shall
bynde
in
earth
shall
be
bounde
in
heauen
,
&
whatsoeuer
you
shall
loose
in
earth
shall
be
loosed
in
heauen
thus
hee
.
So
that
it
is
plaine
that
Bishop
Fisher
neuer
duobted
of
the
power
of
Indulgences
,
or
that
the
vse
of
them
is
not
lawfull
or
profitable
,
as
neither
doth
he
bring
in
question
whether
the
auncient
Fathers
&
diuines
did
denie
,
or
not
acknowledge
these
particulars
,
but
as
I
saide
before
,
he
onelie
treates
of
the
antiquitie
of
the
vse
of
the
same
,
as
manifestlie
appeares
euen
by
the
same
wordes
which
the
knight
cites
where
he
sayth
that
,
Indulgences
began
not
till
a
while
after
the
sainte
,
or
tremble
of
Purgatotie
.
By
which
also
it
doth
further
appeare
that
in
his
passage
that
renowned
Prelate
who
not
onelie
with
his
pen
,
but
also
with
his
sacred
bloud
defended
the
Roman
faith
as
well
in
this
as
all
other
points
,
is
not
sincerelie
dealt
with
,
nor
pertinentlie
alledged
to
the
true
state
of
the
question
proposed
by
our
aduersarie
.
Now
other
authours
which
Sir
Humfrey
cities
,
onely
affirme
that
much
can
not
be
said
of
Indulgences
of
certaintie
,
&
as
vndoubtedly
true
seeing
scriptures
speake
not
of
them
expresselie
as
Durand
affirmes
:
to
which
purpose
also
Antoninus
speakes
,
&
yet
neither
of
them
say
that
nothing
can
be
spoken
with
certainetie
of
them
.
Which
is
not
contrarie
to
the
doctrine
of
the
Romanists
who
,
altho'
they
beleeue
there
is
sufficient
grounde
of
the
power
&
truth
of
them
in
the
Bible
,
yet
they
willingly
graunte
with
all
,
that
diuers
particulars
concerning
them
are
disputable
among
diuines
.
And
it
is
cleare
that
Durand
&
S.
Antoninus
as
they
say
onely
that
pauca
fewe
things
can
be
sayde
with
certainetie
of
pardons
or
Indulgences
,
&
that
the
scripture
doth
not
speake
expressely
of
them
,
so
by
the
same
reason
euident
it
is
that
the
same
authours
graunte
that
both
some
things
may
be
pronounced
certainly
of
them
,
&
also
that
at
the
least
,
ther
is
implicit
&
vnexpressed
mention
or
containement
of
them
in
the
scripture
:
to
wit
of
power
of
the
Church
to
graunt
&
vse
them
,
which
alone
is
sufficient
to
shewe
that
they
consequently
maintaine
the
vniuersalite
&
antiquitie
of
the
Roman
doctrine
in
this
point
&
impugne
the
contrarie
position
of
the
false
reformers
who
absolutelie
&
obstinatelie
denie
such
power
to
reside
in
the
Church
of
God
.
And
as
for
that
which
Durand
affirmes
,
that
diuers
of
the
auncient
Fathers
make
no
mention
of
Indulgences
,
yet
he
doth
not
say
that
it
doth
thence
followe
that
they
did
reiect
the
power
or
vse
of
them
in
the
Church
,
&
much
lesse
doth
Durand
affirme
that
other
auncient
Fathers
did
not
mention
them
;
yea
if
he
had
affirmed
this
,
yet
he
him selfe
kewe
well
enuffe
that
this
being
but
a
negatiue
argument
at
the
most
,
it
proueth
nothing
.
But
that
which
followes
of
those
auncient
Fathers
silence
in
this
matter
,
is
that
they
had
not
occasion
to
speake
of
them
as
others
had
,
or
at
the
most
,
that
Indulgences
were
not
much
in
vse
in
their
tymes
which
doth
not
contradict
the
Romanists
,
who
doe
not
stand
vpon
defense
of
the
frequent
vse
of
them
in
the
Primatiue
Church
,
but
of
the
power
which
they
maintaine
to
be
as
auncient
as
the
spirituall
power
of
binding
&
loosing
giuen
by
Christ
him selfe
to
the
Pastors
of
his
Church
in
most
generall
and
ample
manner
.
Touching
the
citation
of
Caietan
Sir
Humfrey
proceedes
no
lesse
insincerely
,
for
in
the
same
place
which
is
his
15.
Opuscle
,
Out
of
those
texts
it
is
had
that
the
graunte
of
Indulgences
is
not
onely
auncient
,
but
&c.
Where
also
the
reader
is
to
be
aduertised
that
Caietan
is
corrupted
by
Sir
Humfreys
translation
of
the
worde
hunc
or
hanc
,
them
,
which
the
author
referres
to
the
begining
,
or
certaintie
of
their
begining
,
not
to
the
Indulgences
themselues
or
power
to
graunte
them
.
And
doubtlesse
siluester
Prierias
had
the
same
meaning
where
he
sayde
,
if
so
he
sayde
,
that
Pardons
are
not
knowne
vnto
vs
by
the
authoritie
of
the
scripture
but
by
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
of
Roman
,
for
the
sense
is
that
they
are
not
expressely
declared
&
deliuered
vnto
vs
by
the
text
of
the
scripture
in
plaine
wordes
but
by
the
Church
whose
office
it
is
to
propose
such
doctrine
in
particular
to
the
faithfull
as
she
findes
not
so
plainely
deliuered
in
the
scripture
as
they
themselues
can
without
her
directions
come
to
due
knowledge
of
it
.
And
surely
this
athour
is
so
farre
frome
denying
the
Antiquitie
of
the
power
&
vse
of
perdons
that
he
professedly
defended
the
same
against
his
professed
aduersarie
Luther
.
And
the
same
I
saye
of
Eckius
&
Tecelius
,
who
as
Sir
Humfrey
can
not
be
ignorant
were
also
Luthers
Antagonists
euen
in
this
particular
,
to
omit
that
he
cites
those
two
authors
onely
vpon
relation
of
the
Councel
of
Trents
historie
in
English
to
which
as
I
haue
alreader
noted
we
giue
no
credit
.
Nay
&
since
I
writ
this
at
first
,
I
finde
that
Prierias
Eckius
&
Tecelius
are
falsely
charged
by
the
same
false
historie
of
Trent
to
haue
layde
for
their
grounde
of
Indulgences
the
Popes
authoritie
in
their
impugnation
&
conuincement
of
Luther
.
And
to
the
sense
of
these
authors
may
be
reduced
that
which
Cunerus
sayth
of
the
doubtfull
manner
of
writing
of
some
Catholike
authors
,
of
Indulgences
,
if
the
place
be
sincerely
related
which
a
man
may
iustely
suspect
especially
for
that
the
knight
hath
it
out
of
Chamier
&
at
second
hand
.
And
in
deed
the
truth
is
if
that
authors
sentence
had
not
ben
violentlie
abrupted
before
the
end
of
the
same
period
which
he
deliuered
with
one
breath
,
it
would
haue
plainelie
declared
that
there
is
nothing
for
Sir
Humfreyes
purpose
of
prouing
that
neither
Christ
nor
the
Primatiue
Fathers
(
as
he
speaketh
)
euer
knewe
or
exercised
such
pardons
as
are
now
dayly
practised
in
the
Church
of
Rome
.
For
the
wordes
omitted
are
those
.
since
that
(
Indulgences
)
are
most
clearely
discouered
to
be
founded
in
the
Apostolicall
symbole
or
Creed
,
&
in
the
power
of
the
keyes
of
the
Church
&c.
And
so
now
we
see
that
those
testimonies
doe
not
proue
want
of
antiquitie
or
consent
in
either
scripture
,
Fathers
or
schoolemen
for
the
doctrine
of
Indulgences
themselues
,
but
onelie
at
the
most
in
some
accessorie
points
of
that
Controuersie
,
yet
not
one
of
them
prouing
anie
such
want
in
the
maine
of
the
question
aboue
declared
,
no
more
then
he
should
be
thought
to
proue
want
of
antiquitie
&
vniuersallitie
in
the
doctrine
of
three
persons
,
&
one
God
,
who
should
affirme
the
same
not
to
be
in
expresse
termes
contayned
in
the
scripture
,
Fathers
,
&
schoolemen
iuste
in
that
manner
in
which
the
Church
beleeueth
&
defendeth
it
.
And
yet
graunting
neuerthelesse
that
it
is
truelie
contained
in
the
same
scripture
in
an
other
equiualent
manner
,
or
inexpresselie
.
As
also
the
same
doth
yet
more
plainelie
appeare
euen
by
those
same
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
cites
here
out
of
Alfonsus
,
which
altho'
they
be
not
sincerelie
related
by
him
,
as
leauing
out
that
which
most
conduceth
to
the
explication
of
that
authours
true
meaning
,
to
wit
that
,
who
but
an
heretike
can
denie
transubstantiation
,
the
procession
of
the
holie
Gost
&
Purgatorie
because
they
are
not
mentioned
by
auncient
authors
sub
his
nominibus
,
by
these
names
or
wordes
.
And
after
:
what
maruell
therefore
is
it
if
it
happened
in
this
sorte
of
Indulgence
that
,
saith
Castro
there
be
not
mention
made
of
them
in
the
auncients
.
By
which
wordes
it
is
plaine
this
author
speakes
not
absolutelie
of
the
substance
of
Indulgences
or
of
the
authoritie
to
graunte
them
which
indeede
is
the
cheefe
question
of
Controuersie
in
this
place
,
&
of
which
he
makes
no
doubt
but
that
it
is
sufficientlie
contayned
in
scripture
&
Fathers
altho'
as
he
saith
minus
expresse
lesse
expresselie
.
But
he
onelie
speakes
of
the
name
as
his
wordes
now
related
doe
testifie
;
or
at
the
most
of
the
antiquitie
of
their
common
vse
,
which
not
withstanding
it
is
no
matter
of
faith
,
yet
doth
he
shewe
it
not
to
be
so
new
as
the
sectaries
of
our
times
will
haue
it
:
&
therefore
he
addes
by
way
of
conclusion
.
Quod
non
est
tam
recens
Indulgentiarum
vsus
quantum
isti
haeretici
(
meaning
the
Lutherans
)
exprobrant
,
nam
apud
Romanos
vetustissimus
praedicatur
earum
vsus
vt
ex
stationibus
Romaefrequentissimis
colligi
vtcumque
potest
.
Et
de
Beato
Gregorio
huius
nominis
primo
fertur
quod
aliquas
suotempore
concesserit
.
And
in
the
same
tenor
of
wordes
he
adioyneth
that
,
et
si
pro
Indulgentiaram
approbatione
sacrae
scripturae
apertum
testimonium
desit
,
non
tamen
ideo
contemnendae
erant
quoniam
Ecclesiae
Catholicae
vsus
à
multis
annorum
saeculis
receptus
,
tantae
est
authoritatis
vt
qui
illum
contemnat
haereticus
merito
censeatur
&c.
By
all
which
it
is
euident
that
nothing
can
be
proued
by
the
wordes
of
Alfonsus
against
the
substance
of
Ecclesiasticall
Indulgences
nor
contrarie
to
the
antiquitie
&
vniuersalitie
of
the
Roman
doctrine
in
that
point
,
but
rather
Sir
Humfrey
&
his
brothers
are
manifestlie
conuicted
of
heresie
for
contemning
the
same
.
Now
Maior
in
4.
d.
2.
q.
2.
is
impertinentlie
alledged
for
he
onelie
affirmes
that
it
's
harde
to
founde
authenticallie
in
scripture
iuste
that
manner
of
Indulgence
which
is
vsed
at
this
day
in
the
Church
:
&
that
some
of
the
auncient
Fathers
made
no
mention
thereof
,
which
the
Romanists
doe
not
denie
for
they
saye
difficilia
quae
pulchra
.
And
so
that
which
is
hardelie
founded
is
truelie
founded
.
Yet
the
power
&
vse
of
Indulgences
euen
as
they
are
now
practised
the
same
Maior
defendes
as
well
as
other
moderne
diuines
,
yea
&
deduceth
the
vse
of
them
from
S.
Gregorie
the
great
,
&
thus
this
author
is
excused
&
the
citer
reprooued
.
Touching
Siluester
Prieras
altho'
I
cannot
haue
that
same
worke
of
his
which
Sir
Humfrey
cites
.
(
if
anie
such
be
extant
now
in
the
world
)
yet
I
haue
viewed
the
treatise
of
Indulgences
which
he
hath
in
his
summe
,
&
there
I
finde
that
he
doth
not
saie
all
that
with
which
our
aduersarie
doth
charge
him
,
nay
nor
scarce
halfe
so
much
,
for
he
neither
excludes
scripture
from
the
grounde
of
Indulgences
,
Lastely
touching
Bellarmine
&
Valentia
,
I
saye
they
are
neyther
of
them
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
either
with
any
great
sinceretie
,
or
to
any
great
purpose
.
For
altho'
Bellarmin
doth
insinuate
that
there
are
not
manie
of
the
more
auncient
authors
which
make
mention
of
Indulgences
;
yet
he
doth
not
affirme
that
there
is
want
of
antiquitie
&
consent
in
the
Fathers
in
this
matter
as
Sir
Humfrey
doth
falselie
deduce
out
of
his
wordes
,
but
onelie
insinuateth
that
the
defect
of
number
of
the
more
auncient
Fathers
which
mention
Indulgences
,
is
sufficientlie
supplyed
by
the
vse
&
custome
of
the
Church
without
writing
,
by
reason
(
saith
he
)
that
manie
things
are
retayned
in
the
Church
by
that
meanes
onelie
.
And
as
for
Valentia
who
as
he
is
cited
by
the
knight
,
relates
out
of
S.
Thomas
the
opinion
of
some
who
called
Indulgences
a
pious
fraude
to
allure
men
to
the
performance
of
those
pious
workes
which
are
requyred
in
the
forme
of
the
Indulgence
graunted
,
it
is
true
there
was
such
a
tenet
in
those
dayes
:
but
as
it
is
true
that
S.
Thomas
relates
it
,
so
is
it
also
true
that
he
condemnes
the
same
for
verie
dangerous
,
that
which
our
aduersarie
if
he
had
dealt
honestlie
ought
not
to
haue
omitted
.
And
yet
not
obstanding
,
he
could
not
but
see
that
position
censured
by
S.
Thomas
in
the
verie
place
cited
by
Valentia
,
as
also
he
censureth
another
little
better
,
to
wit
that
by
virtue
of
the
Indulgence
itselfe
no
punishment
neither
in
the
iudgement
of
God
,
nor
the
Church
could
be
remitted
:
notwithstanding
all
this
I
saye
,
yet
Sir
Humfrey
subtillie
let
it
passe
,
making
by
that
meanes
his
reader
beleeue
that
the
foresaid
tenet
was
long
before
the
dayes
or
Luther
according
to
the
relation
of
Aquinas
(
as
he
saith
)
an
vncondemned
opinion
of
some
diuines
,
&
reiected
as
erroneous
by
Valentia
alone
:
who
neuerthelesse
expresselie
affirmeth
it
to
haue
beene
an
opinion
hised
at
by
all
Orthodox
writers
,
opinio
ab
Orthodoxis
omnibus
explosa
.
Nay
&
which
is
yet
more
grosse
,
Sir
Humfrey
leaueth
quite
out
some
parte
of
the
wordes
of
the
foresaid
opinion
as
it
is
rehearsed
by
Valentia
,
to
wit
those
which
mention
satisfaction
made
to
God
by
reason
of
the
deuotion
of
the
gainer
of
the
Indulgence
&
value
of
the
pious
workes
in
ioyned
him
for
the
obtaining
of
the
same
,
all
which
because
it
sounded
contrarie
to
the
doctrine
of
the
pretensiue
reformed
Churches
,
it
struct
Sir
Humfrey
deafe
one
that
eare
,
&
so
he
left
it
out
.
I
omit
diuers
particulars
which
our
aduersarie
vtters
here
&
there
in
the
progresse
of
his
Paragraffe
.
Because
they
either
consiste
of
some
inauthenticall
relations
aboute
the
vse
or
rather
aboute
the
abuse
of
some
particular
graunts
of
Indulgences
as
that
out
of
the
office
of
Saram
&
out
of
Guitcherdin
:
or
els
they
consiste
in
his
owne
plaine
calumnious
vntruthes
,
as
that
Indulgences
are
graunted
onelie
to
drawe
money
frome
the
grainers
:
&
that
the
Romanists
pretend
vniuersalitie
of
Fathers
for
euerie
point
of
faith
:
&
that
the
article
of
Indulgences
wantes
authoritie
of
scripture
,
of
all
this
I
saye
I
need
to
make
no
further
discussion
in
regarde
the
apparent
falsitie
of
it
doth
sufficientlie
confute
it selfe
&
shewes
that
it
proceeds
rather
frome
a
man
malitiouslie
affected
&
ignorant
of
the
state
of
the
question
,
&
more
disposed
to
cauille
then
carefull
to
attaine
to
the
truth
of
the
doctrine
.
For
suppose
the
abuses
were
neuer
so
true
(
which
as
in
all
other
things
so
in
this
I
confesse
there
haue
ben
some
especiallie
in
the
questors
or
inferior
administrators
of
Indulgences
,
&
may
be
more
:
neuerthelesse
these
abuses
of
particular
men
,
doe
not
impeach
the
power
,
&
authoritie
,
&
lawfull
vse
of
the
same
,
which
onelie
is
that
which
my
aduersarie
&
I
haue
now
in
question
.
And
so
now
for
conclusion
of
this
matter
we
may
hence
inferre
how
impiouslie
the
sectaries
proceed
in
the
denyall
&
impugnation
of
the
Indulgences
vsed
in
the
Roman
Church
,
which
altho'
they
had
no
other
vtilitie
or
profit
in
them
then
to
induce
people
to
the
exercise
of
such
pious
workes
as
are
requyred
in
the
tenor
of
them
,
that
is
fasting
,
prayer
&
almes
so
heighly
commended
in
the
scriptures
,
&
receiuing
of
the
Sacraments
,
yet
in
common
reason
ought
they
not
to
be
reiected
,
but
rather
maintained
&
sought
for
with
great
zeale
&
deuotion
.
And
so
now
let
this
suffice
for
the
intyre
discussion
of
this
paragraffe
,
in
which
I
haue
founde
nothing
to
the
excuse
the
author
frome
the
same
censure
I
haue
layd
vpon
him
in
the
precedent
matters
.
THE
IX
PERIOD
.
WE
are
now
come
to
the
10.
section
of
the
booke
in
which
Sir
Humfrey
produceth
the
testimonies
of
the
Romanists
touching
the
infallible
certaintie
of
the
Protestant
faith
,
&
the
vncertaintie
of
the
Romish
.
this
is
his
designe
,
but
I
ame
verily
persuaded
he
will
fayle
of
his
purpose
.
I
will
examen
particulars
that
the
truth
may
appeare
.
But
before
this
I
must
aduertise
the
reader
that
in
this
section
ther
is
litle
substance
to
be
founde
,
&
it
consists
cheefly
in
a
large
recapitulation
of
the
supposed
confessions
of
the
Romanists
:
as
that
they
haue
confessed
that
iustification
is
by
faith
onely
,
that
the
conuersion
of
the
bread
in
to
Christs
bodie
,
was
not
generally
receiued
by
the
Fathers
,
that
the
certaine
&
definite
number
of
Sacraments
was
vnknowne
to
scripture
&
Fathers
,
&
that
the
Indulgences
now
vsed
,
haue
no
authoritie
from
scripture
or
Fathers
,
&
the
like
all
which
particulars
we
haue
allreadie
disproued
in
their
seuerall
places
.
In
substance
a
great
parte
of
it
is
but
an
idle
repetition
of
those
falsities
which
the
kingh
hath
vttered
before
,
with
some
newe
additions
to
make
the
number
of
his
lyes
more
ample
&
complete
&
this
he
performeth
with
great
abundance
of
wordes
of
amplification
:
&
thinking
to
make
all
sure
calleth
to
witnesse
both
men
&
Angels
:
And
thus
for
space
of
a
leafe
or
two
,
he
bringeth
nothing
but
verbal
discourses
which
with
the
very
breath
of
any
iudicious
reader
presently
vanish
away
,
&
so
they
need
no
other
confutation
.
Afterwardes
he
comes
to
some
particulars
which
I
haue
not
yet
touched
&
of
these
I
will
make
a
breefe
examen
.
And
to
omitte
those
points
which
I
haue
before
discussed
,
in
his
page
242.
he
indeuoreth
to
proue
out
of
Bellarmin
that
the
Church
of
Rome
hath
ouerthrowne
in
one
tenet
all
certaintie
of
true
faith
,
&
he
performeth
it
very
solidly
,
because
for
sooth
Bellarmin
affirmeth
that
none
can
be
certaine
by
certaintie
of
faith
that
he
receiueth
a
Sacrament
by
reason
of
the
vncertainty
of
the
intention
of
the
minister
without
which
the
Sacrament
can
not
be
made
.
And
the
argument
the
kinght
framed
of
the
doctrine
of
the
Cardinall
is
this
.
It
is
a
positiue
grounde
of
the
Roman
Religion
that
a
Sacrament
can
not
be
made
without
the
intention
of
the
minister
but
the
intention
of
the
minister
can
not
be
knowne
by
faith
,
therfore
the
Church
of
Rome
hath
ouerthrowne
in
one
tenet
all
certaintie
of
true
faith
.
I
ansere
first
that
altho'
this
is
the
forme
which
Sir
Hūfreys
argument
must
be
reduced
vnto
if
anie
it
can
haue
,
neuerthelesse
if
we
should
examen
it
according
to
the
rules
of
logique
ther
will
scarcely
be
founde
either
forme
or
figure
in
it
,
yet
least
the
knight
should
hould
himselfe
too
rigorously
delt
with
as
not
making
profession
of
that
arte
,
I
am
content
to
let
that
passe
and
answere
secondly
that
I
graunt
the
maior
in
this
sense
viz.
That
whensoeuer
the
Preist
doth
administer
a
Sacrament
it
is
required
that
he
intends
at
the
least
in
generall
to
doe
that
which
the
true
Church
vseth
to
doe
in
that
action
I
meane
either
formally
or
virtually
,
&
this
is
defined
by
the
Councell
of
Trent
as
a
certaine
trueth
.
But
in
the
minor
there
lyeth
secretly
a
certaine
false
supposition
which
is
this
.
That
to
the
faith
of
a
Sacrament
is
necessarilie
required
that
the
intention
of
the
minister
in
particular
cases
be
knowne
by
faith
which
is
not
true
,
nor
defined
by
the
Councell
;
because
to
the
faith
of
a
Sacrament
is
sufficient
that
faith
by
which
a
Christian
beleeueth
that
euery
one
of
those
visible
signes
which
the
Church
proposeth
to
the
people
to
be
beleeued
&
receiued
as
Sacraments
of
the
new
lawe
are
instituted
by
Christ
to
conferre
grace
to
the
receiuers
,
&
that
to
euery
one
of
them
is
required
a
sincere
intention
to
administer
or
performe
that
particular
action
as
is
was
instituted
,
or
as
the
Tridentine
decreeth
,
intentione
saltem
faciendi
quod
facit
Ecclesia
,
that
is
at
the
least
with
intention
to
hoe
that
which
the
Church
doth
;
&
that
seriously
&
not
in
mockrie
:
but
notwithstanding
it
is
not
necessary
that
either
he
that
performeth
that
ceremonie
,
or
he
that
receiues
the
same
,
haue
certaine
knowledge
of
faith
that
this
or
that
indiuidual
Sacrament
hath
ben
instituted
with
the
forsaid
intention
,
but
to
this
a
morall
certaintie
doth
suffice
both
in
the
minister
&
in
the
receiuer
,
&
the
reason
is
because
to
know
whether
one
hath
receiued
,
or
doth
truely
receiue
a
Sacrament
or
not
,
falleth
not
vpon
the
essence
,
or
making
or
marring
of
a
Sacrament
as
a
thing
necessarily
precedent
vnto
the
constitution
of
it
,
but
it
is
onely
a
thing
consequent
or
following
the
same
as
seruing
onely
to
rectify
&
quiete
the
consciences
of
those
that
either
administer
it
or
receiue
it
,
to
the
which
as
being
but
a
morall
matter
,
morall
certainty
onely
is
required
.
And
surely
if
all
true
faith
should
therefore
be
ouerthrowne
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
infereth
because
of
want
of
certainty
of
faith
in
the
receiuers
that
they
receiue
true
Sacraments
euerie
time
they
reciue
them
,
then
should
it
followe
by
an
argument
ad
hominem
,
that
the
faith
of
the
reformers
were
also
ouerthrowne
;
for
that
they
themselues
neither
haue
nor
can
haue
any
such
certaintie
of
faith
:
or
if
they
say
ther
is
no
faith
of
any
such
intention
of
the
minister
in
their
religion
,
so
doe
we
say
the
same
of
ours
:
for
altho'
it
is
a
matter
of
faith
in
the
Roman
Church
that
the
intention
of
the
Preist
is
necessary
in
generall
to
the
constitution
of
a
Sacrament
,
yet
that
intention
is
not
necessarily
knowne
by
faith
in
euerie
particular
case
,
&
in
this
consisteth
the
equiuocation
of
the
whole
argument
,
&
if
the
knight
had
distinguished
between
the
intention
&
the
faith
of
the
intention
,
he
might
easilie
haue
perceiued
that
his
discourse
was
founded
vpon
a
false
foundation
.
To
say
nothing
of
the
conclusion
which
although
the
premises
were
neuer
so
true
,
yet
had
they
not
ben
able
to
inferre
such
à
vast
consequence
as
is
the
ouerthrowe
of
all
certaintie
of
true
faith
,
precisely
in
respect
of
the
supposed
want
of
faith
of
intention
aboute
the
Sacraments
.
And
now
by
this
generall
ansere
may
be
solued
what
soeuer
Sir
Humfrey
saith
afterwardes
of
the
intention
required
to
the
Sacraments
in
particular
.
To
which
I
alson
adde
that
if
certaintie
of
faith
were
required
in
the
receiuers
of
the
Sacraments
that
as
often
as
they
receiue
them
,
the
receiue
true
Sacraments
hic
&
nunc
,
&
that
as
often
as
they
want
that
faith
they
ouerthrow
all
certaintie
of
true
faith
,
then
the
reformers
themselues
were
in
a
more
pitifull
case
then
the
Romanists
,
in
regarde
that
it
is
vnpossible
for
them
to
knowne
more
then
either
by
their
owne
seight
,
or
by
relation
of
others
,
that
the
true
matter
&
forme
of
the
Sacraments
,
be
truelie
applyed
vnto
them
:
&
yet
certaine
it
is
that
vpon
neither
of
these
two
knowledges
anie
supernaturall
faith
can
be
founded
,
but
onely
either
a
kynde
of
naturall
cognition
or
knowledge
at
the
most
,
taken
from
the
senses
,
or
a
certaine
morall
certitude
proceeding
from
the
relation
of
their
parents
or
others
,
all
which
is
farre
inferior
to
the
knowledge
of
faith
as
no
man
can
denie
.
That
which
may
by
a
speciall
reason
be
yet
more
plainelie
vrged
against
the
receiuers
of
the
Sacraments
in
the
reformed
Churches
,
in
regarde
they
are
so
farre
from
certaintie
of
faith
of
the
trueth
of
their
Sacraments
in
particular
,
that
they
cannot
possible
haue
as
much
as
a
morall
certaintie
of
the
same
nay
nor
morall
probabilitie
I
meane
such
an
one
as
may
iustlie
moue
a
prudent
man
to
giue
credit
,
by
reason
they
haue
no
certaintie
,
nor
yet
probabilitie
of
the
trueth
of
the
vocation
&
ordination
of
their
ministers
,
without
certaintie
of
which
two
conditions
,
it
is
well
knowne
on
both
sides
,
that
no
certaine
knowledge
of
the
truth
of
indiuiduall
Sacraments
can
possiblie
he
had
.
And
so
we
see
that
whereas
Sir
Humfrey
thought
he
had
framed
a
stong
argument
against
the
doctrine
of
Bellarmin
,
he
onelie
heapeth
coles
vpon
his
owne
head
.
And
from
hence
also
we
may
gather
an
easie
solution
to
that
which
he
addeth
against
the
necessitie
of
the
Preists
intention
in
some
of
the
Sacraments
which
he
specifieth
as
baptisme
,
Order
,
&
Matrimonie
.
Touching
which
matter
I
desire
the
iudicious
reader
consider
whether
it
is
not
much
more
conformable
to
reason
,
to
the
dignity
of
the
Sacraments
,
to
the
honour
of
Christ
who
instituted
them
,
&
to
the
confort
&
securitie
of
the
receiuers
,
that
a
sincere
intention
of
the
Preist
Gods
substitute
,
be
required
to
the
truth
&
due
administration
of
them
as
the
Roman
Church
doth
teach
&
ordaine
:
or
onely
so
,
that
if
the
receiuers
take
them
in
the
name
of
God
,
as
the
reformers
speake
,
it
is
sufficient
for
the
minister
to
performe
that
externall
action
which
Christ
did
institude
,
tho'
he
doeth
it
in
iest
or
morkery
as
Luther
teacheth
,
or
animo
illusorio
,
that
is
with
an
intention
or
meaning
to
delude
as
kemnitius
affirmeth
,
or
to
haue
no
intention
necessarily
required
as
Sir
Humfrey
here
professeth
:
this
I
say
I
leaue
to
the
iudgement
of
any
indifferent
man
to
discerne
whether
the
Romanists
or
the
reformers
proceed
more
safely
&
religiously
.
And
as
for
the
illations
which
the
knight
deduceth
out
of
the
necessity
of
the
intention
of
the
minister
in
administration
of
Sacraments
they
are
so
ignorant
&
sotish
,
as
I
ame
ashamed
to
rehearse
them
,
for
example
when
he
sayth
that
if
the
Preist
fayles
in
his
intention
at
the
tyme
of
solemnization
of
matrimonie
the
maried
people
liue
all
their
dayes
in
adultrie
,
or
fornication
:
which
is
a
most
grosse
errour
in
the
knight
:
for
that
the
Romanists
&
the
reformers
agree
in
this
that
altho'
Matrimonie
were
no
Sacrament
,
&
consequentlie
that
the
maried
people
should
not
receiue
it
as
a
Sacrament
,
yet
were
it
sufficient
to
free
them
from
adulterie
,
in
regarde
they
receiue
it
at
the
least
as
a
ciuill
contract
,
whatsoeuer
the
Preists
intention
bee
.
And
if
it
were
not
so
,
certainely
all
sectaries
of
this
time
,
&
particularilie
Sir
Humfrey
himselfe
for
one
should
liue
perpetuallie
in
that
damnable
state
of
adulterie
which
he
mentioneth
.
And
yet
this
sequele
I
am
sure
it
importes
him
to
denie
as
earnestlie
as
he
can
if
it
be
but
onelie
for
the
conseruation
of
his
owne
,
&
his
wifes
honour
.
And
the
like
foolish
&
false
inferences
he
makes
aboute
all
the
rest
of
the
Sacraments
,
as
also
aboute
the
succession
of
the
Popes
&
pastours
of
the
Church
as
if
by
the
confession
of
Romanists
themselues
there
were
no
certaintie
in
anie
of
them
:
whereas
yet
he
himselfe
citeth
Bellarmin
in
this
verie
place
as
teaching
that
in
all
these
things
there
is
at
least
morall
&
sufficient
certaintie
of
their
reall
existance
&
truth
.
In
a
semblable
fashion
doth
he
also
prosecute
the
like
captious
kinde
of
argument
against
diuers
other
points
of
the
Roman
doctrine
,
as
for
Example
because
he
findeth
in
Biel
&
Peter
Lombard
that
they
speake
not
with
anie
certaintie
of
the
manner
how
Saints
doe
vnderstand
the
prayers
of
their
supplicants
,
he
inferreth
that
the
Romanists
are
vncertaine
touching
the
doctrine
of
inuocation
of
Saints
it selfe
,
which
neuerthelesse
is
a
most
false
illation
for
that
although
there
be
some
vncertaintie
in
what
manner
or
by
what
meanes
the
Saints
doe
come
to
knowe
our
prayers
by
reason
of
the
diuers
opinions
of
diuines
in
that
particular
,
yet
as
well
those
who
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
as
also
all
the
rest
of
the
Romanists
agree
and
hould
for
certaine
that
Saints
are
piouslie
&
profitablie
to
be
inuocated
&
prayed
vnto
,
all
without
exception
teaching
&
inculcating
the
same
expresselie
in
their
bookes
&
writings
.
Gabriel
Biel
is
so
plaine
for
the
doctrine
of
the
Roman
Church
,
that
if
the
knight
had
not
corrupted
him
both
in
wordes
&
sensc
,
he
could
not
haue
alledged
him
with
anie
coulorable
pretense
:
For
in
the
verie
precedent
lection
to
that
which
he
cites
against
vs
.
Biel
resolues
the
question
in
our
fauor
saying
.
Whence
it
is
apparent
that
our
prayers
,
&
hope
of
obtaining
beatitude
by
the
mediation
of
the
Saints
,
are
not
voyde
in
Heauen
:
but
by
order
constituted
by
God
himselfe
;
we
ought
to
recurre
to
their
helpe
,
&
assistance
:
&
perpetuallie
implore
them
with
due
veneration
that
we
may
be
saued
by
their
merits
.
In
which
wordes
,
&
the
rest
following
,
I
am
sure
there
is
sufficient
to
make
the
author
a
plaine
Papist
,
yea
&
much
more
then
Sir
Humfrey
desires
to
heare
in
fauor
of
the
Roman
doctrine
&
so
it
is
cleare
he
hath
corrupted
his
sense
.
And
nowe
for
his
wordes
,
he
hath
likewise
corrupted
them
most
peruerselie
,
by
displaceing
,
&
tranferring
them
from
one
purpose
to
an
other
.
For
these
wordes
:
non
est
certum
per
omnia
:
By
which
Biel
ansers
onelie
to
that
question
,
whether
it
pertaines
to
the
accidental
Beatitude
of
the
Saints
to
heare
our
prayers
(
which
question
as
you
see
is
onelie
aboute
the
manner
,
or
qualitie
of
the
Saints
vnderstanding
our
petitions
,
not
of
the
maine
substance
)
he
respondes
:
Non
per
omnia
certum
est
.
It
is
not
altogether
certaine
.
And
yet
Sir
Humfrey
applyes
this
,
as
if
Biel
had
said
,
that
it
is
not
certaine
that
the
Saints
heare
our
prayers
at
all
.
Yet
further
connecting
vnto
the
same
,
those
other
wordes
:
vnde
probabiliter
dicitur
:
Which
he
also
soma't
.
Insincerelie
Englisheth
:
it
may
seeme
probable
:
&
rehearsing
them
in
one
series
,
or
tenor
,
whereas
yet
they
are
vttered
by
their
author
,
manie
lynes
after
,
&
to
an
other
purpose
,
where
ansering
to
the
question
before
proposed
he
said
thus
:
Vnde
probabiliter
dicitur
&c.
Whence
it
is
probably
said
,
that
altho'
it
doth
not
necessarilie
followe
the
beatitude
of
the
Saints
,
that
they
heare
our
prayers
:
by
congruitie
,
yet
God
almightie
reuelles
vnto
them
all
that
is
offered
vnto
them
by
men
.
All
which
particulars
concerning
the
corruption
of
this
place
by
the
guilie
knight
,
may
more
plainelie
be
perceiued
in
the
author
himselfe
,
then
I
can
possible
here
expresse
.
As
for
the
Master
of
sentences
,
&
Scotus
in
the
45.
d.
of
the
fourth
booke
,
altho'
perchance
they
seeme
to
one
that
reades
then
superficiallie
,
not
to
speake
with
certainetie
of
the
inuocation
of
Saints
,
yet
to
the
anttentiue
reader
it
appeares
clearely
they
both
suppose
for
certaine
,
&
of
which
they
frame
no
disputation
,
that
the
Angels
,
&
Saints
heare
our
prayers
,
&
that
we
lawfullie
&
profitablie
praye
vnto
them
,
of
which
points
it
is
most
vndoubtedlie
to
be
supposed
that
those
two
authors
could
not
be
ignorant
,
nor
maintaine
the
negatiue
parte
,
in
regarde
the
publike
letanies
in
which
the
inuocation
of
Saints
is
expresselie
included
were
vsed
in
the
Church
long
before
their
dayes
,
as
histories
so
commonlie
testifie
that
I
need
not
produce
them
.
Besides
that
the
writings
of
the
ancient
Fathers
whose
sentences
Peter
Lombard
professedlie
collected
,
as
much
as
was
for
his
purpose
,
&
of
which
Scotus
could
not
be
ignorant
,
are
full
of
the
same
doctrine
as
in
our
Catholike
Controuertists
may
easily
appeare
to
the
reader
.
And
therefore
whereas
the
Master
vses
the
wordes
:
non
est
incredibile
,
&
scotus
probabile
est
,
they
speake
not
eyther
of
the
absolute
inuocation
of
Saints
,
or
of
our
prayers
vnto
them
of
which
neyther
of
them
proposes
the
question
:
but
they
applye
those
wordes
to
the
manner
onely
of
their
vnderstanding
our
intercession
.
And
therefore
the
Master
puts
the
title
of
the
question
thus
:
quomodo
?
how
or
in
what
manner
,
or
,
by
what
meanes
doe
the
Saints
heare
our
prayers
,
&
how
they
interced
for
vs
vnto
our
Lord
?
To
which
he
ansers
,
it
is
not
incredible
that
the
Saints
which
in
the
secret
of
the
face
of
God
,
inioye
the
illumination
of
the
true
leight
,
vnderstand
in
contemplation
of
him
so
much
as
appertaines
eyther
to
their
owne
ioye
,
or
our
assistanse
.
For
as
to
the
Angels
,
so
to
the
Saints
who
assiste
in
the
Seight
of
God
,
our
petitions
are
knowne
in
the
eternall
worde
.
And
this
I
haue
added
of
the
doctrine
of
Scotus
not
as
vsed
or
abused
by
my
aduersarie
but
onely
the
better
to
declare
the
true
meaning
of
the
Master
of
sentence
.
And
as
for
Caietan
whome
also
Sir
Humfrey
produceth
to
the
same
purpose
,
it
is
manifest
euen
out
of
the
wordes
cited
by
him
,
that
he
onely
speaketh
of
some
want
of
certaintie
in
the
miracles
which
the
Church
vseth
as
an
argument
in
the
Canonization
of
saints
by
reason
that
altho'
as
he
confesseth
expressely
,
they
be
most
authenticall
,
yet
are
they
not
saith
he
,
omnino
certa
altogether
certaine
,
because
the
credit
thereof
depends
vpon
the
reportes
of
men
.
But
for
all
this
neither
doth
he
affirme
absolutelie
that
miracles
are
the
grounde
wherein
the
Church
foundes
the
Canonization
of
the
saints
(
as
Sir
Humfrey
affirmeth
most
corruptelie
translatinng
his
wordes
omitting
those
.
Quae
maxime
authentica
sunt
:
&
for
ab
Ecclesia
suscipiuntur
,
putting
in
Inglish
wheron
the
Church
grounteth
the
Canonization
,
and
detorting
them
to
that
sense
as
the
reader
may
clearly
perceiue
by
conferring
the
translation
with
the
quotation
in
Latin
)
nor
yet
doth
the
same
Caietan
either
in
this
or
anie
other
place
of
his
wordes
deny
either
the
certaintie
of
the
doctrine
of
the
inuocation
it selfe
,
or
yet
the
doctrine
of
the
certaintie
of
the
Canonization
,
but
he
onely
,
at
the
most
,
sayth
that
the
Church
cannot
receiue
full
,
but
onely
humane
certainty
from
such
miracles
alone
as
she
hath
by
relation
of
particular
men
,
not
euidentlie
operated
in
the
eyes
of
the
whole
Church
.
And
according
to
this
we
may
easily
answere
to
the
saying
of
S.
Augustin
,
that
manie
soules
are
tormented
in
hell
whose
bodies
are
honored
in
earth
,
for
this
S.
Augustin
speakes
onelie
of
certaine
suppositious
saints
whome
the
common
people
honored
for
true
saints
,
as
it
is
manifest
by
the
example
which
the
same
S.
Aug.
produceth
out
of
Sulpitius
who
relateth
how
the
vulgaritie
did
long
celebrate
one
for
a
martyr
who
afterwardes
appeared
&
tould
them
he
was
damned
.
And
the
like
is
related
of
a
discouerie
which
S.
Martin
made
of
a
false
martyr
:
which
particular
examples
of
errour
in
the
common
people
ought
not
in
common
prudence
to
preiudicate
the
certaintie
of
the
doctrine
of
honour
due
vnto
such
as
the
whole
Church
in
all
succeeding
ages
hath
honored
for
true
saints
&
blessed
freinds
of
God
.
Neither
doth
S.
Augustin
in
the
cited
place
speake
to
anie
such
purpose
of
calling
in
question
the
generall
doctrine
&
practice
of
the
Church
in
the
points
of
honour
or
inuocation
of
Saints
as
may
appeare
by
that
in
other
places
of
his
workes
he
expresselie
auerreth
the
same
as
in
his
first
sermon
of
S.
Peter
&
Paule
,
&
in
his
44.
ep.
where
he
hath
thes
notable
wordes
.
In
Petro
quis
honoratur
nisi
ille
qui
defunctus
est
pro
nobis
?
Who
is
honored
in
Peter
but
he
that
dyed
for
vs
?
And
in
his
84.
treatise
vpon
the
gospell
of
S.
Iohn
he
sayth
.
At
the
table
we
doe
not
so
remember
martirs
as
we
also
praye
for
them
,
but
rather
so
that
they
praye
for
vs
.
And
in
his
booke
de
cura
pro
mortuis
vtinam
&
vos
colere
velletis
,
facile
enim
ab
ipsis
disceretis
non
illos
colere
.
Would
to
God
you
also
would
wosship
them
for
you
might
easily
learne
of
them
not
to
worship
them
.
That
is
not
to
adore
them
as
Gods
but
as
saints
.
To
this
I
adde
that
Bellarmin
professeth
he
could
neuer
finde
the
foresayd
wordes
in
S.
Augustin
,
neither
could
I
hauing
deligently
searched
for
them
;
euer
finde
them
.
In
this
same
manner
Sir
Humfrey
proceeds
in
the
matter
of
Purgatory
.
For
wher
as
S.
Augusitn
in
his
69.
chapter
of
his
Enchir.
speaking
not
of
the
existence
of
Purgatorie
but
onelie
of
some
particulars
which
are
consequent
vnto
it
propoundeth
a
question
whether
the
soule
seperated
from
the
bodie
be
subiect
to
those
inordinate
affections
to
temporall
things
to
which
shee
was
subiect
when
shee
was
united
to
the
bodie
,
to
which
question
because
Sainct
Augustin
answereth
doubtfully
&
with
vncertainetie
,
the
kinght
handleth
the
matter
so
nimblie
&
cunninglie
that
the
reader
may
easilie
be
persuaded
by
him
that
S.
Augustin
was
doubtfull
of
the
existence
or
being
of
Purgatorie
it selfe
&
so
for
the
greater
furtherance
of
this
persuation
,
wher
S.
Augustin
speaking
onelie
of
the
foresayd
question
saith
▪
it
is
not
incredible
that
some
such
thing
should
be
aftfer
this
life
,
honest
Sir
Humfrey
to
make
his
market
the
better
foysteth
in
the
word
Purgatory
in
the
beginning
of
the
sentence
as
if
that
were
it
of
which
S.
Augustin
saith
quaeri
potest
,
it
may
be
questioned
,
&
so
deludeth
his
reader
egregiously
with
the
falsification
both
of
his
wordes
&
sense
.
Some
other
particulars
touching
this
same
metter
Sir
Humfrey
addeth
partely
impertinent
&
partilie
false
.
Impertinent
,
for
example
,
is
that
passage
of
his
248.
page
.
in
which
he
affirmes
that
Bellarmine
saith
it
is
dpubtfull
whether
the
punishment
of
Purgatorie
be
by
materiall
fyre
,
or
some
other
meanes
?
For
what
incertaintie
soeuer
there
were
in
the
Church
aboute
this
point
:
yet
this
being
I
say
not
touching
the
paine
it selfe
but
onelie
the
qualitie
or
maner
of
the
paine
,
it
is
out
of
our
controuersie
in
this
matter
,
which
is
not
here
of
the
circumstances
of
Purgatorie
,
but
of
the
existence
or
being
of
Purgatorie
it selfe
:
the
manner
,
continuation
of
time
,
&
instruments
by
which
the
soules
are
punished
&
the
like
,
being
left
to
Catholike
diuines
to
dispute
at
there
pleasure
.
And
so
this
allegation
of
Bellarmin
by
the
knight
against
the
certaintie
of
the
Roman
doctrine
concerning
Purgatorie
,
is
as
farre
out
of
quare
as
if
he
had
alledged
eyther
our
diuines
or
his
owne
to
proue
there
is
neyther
Hell
nor
Heauen
,
because
they
make
disputable
questions
or
doubts
,
concerning
the
paines
of
the
one
,
&
glorie
of
the
other
.
And
yet
besides
this
,
it
is
not
true
that
Bellarmine
makes
any
such
doubt
of
the
materialitie
of
the
fire
of
Purgatorie
,
but
he
expressely
auerres
that
the
common
sentence
of
diuines
is
for
it
.
Adding
that
it
is
not
in
deed
a
matter
of
faith
,
because
it
is
in
no
place
defined
by
the
Church
.
Yet
saith
he
,
it
is
a
most
probable
opinion
(
besides
other
reasons
he
alledges
)
in
regarde
of
the
consent
of
the
Scolastikes
,
which
cannot
be
contemned
without
temeritie
.
And
now
supposing
the
Cardinal
speakes
so
plainelie
:
Sir
Humfrey
proceeded
not
sincerelie
in
that
he
insinuates
the
contrarie
by
a
defectiue
citation
of
his
wordes
.
Secondlie
he
falsely
affirmeth
that
S.
Greg.
gaue
the
first
Credo
to
Purgatorie
,
&
that
he
learned
it
by
reuelations
,
insinuating
also
that
the
Roman
Church
groundeth
the
faith
of
Purgatory
vpon
the
spirits
&
apparitions
of
dead
men
,
which
is
all
false
&
calumnious
,
for
that
neither
S.
Gregorie
nor
any
other
Romanists
euer
founded
anie
doctrine
of
faith
vpon
such
groundes
,
but
onelie
at
the
most
,
vse
them
for
confirmation
&
illustration
of
those
arguments
which
are
founded
in
scripture
for
that
purpose
as
their
writings
make
manifest
.
And
that
S.
Gregorie
was
not
the
first
established
,
or
gaue
the
first
Credo
(
as
the
knight
speakes
)
to
Purgatorie
,
it
is
manifestly
conuinced
by
the
testimonies
of
such
Fathers
as
liued
long
before
him
,
&
make
expresse
mention
of
it
.
And
to
omit
others
yet
more
auncient
,
S.
Gregorie
Nyssen
in
his
oration
of
the
dead
,
hath
these
plaine
wordes
▪
Non
poterit
à
corpore
egressus
diuinitatis
particeps
fieri
nisi
maculas
animo
immixtas
purgatorius
ignis
abstulerit
.
The
departed
can
not
be
partaker
of
the
diuinitie
,
vnlesse
purgatorie
fyre
take
away
the
spots
residing
in
his
soule
.
adding
after
wordes
:
alijs
post
hanc
vitam
purgatorio
igne
materiae
labes
abstergentibus
.
Others
clensing
after
this
life
the
corruption
of
the
matter
with
purgatory
fyre
.
I
indeed
finde
these
words
smat
different
in
an
other
translation
,
as
also
the
wordes
of
an
other
pregnant
place
of
the
same
author
to
the
same
purpose
in
his
precedent
page
aboute
the
midest
of
the
oration
:
but
the
sense
is
the
same
in
all
places
&
versions
,
S.
Austin
also
in
the
16.
of
his
50.
homilies
saith
thus
.
Qui
temporalibus
paenis
digna
gesserunt
per
ignem
quendam
purgatorium
transibunt
,
de
quo
Apostolus
ait
▪
saluus
erit
sic
tamen
quasi
per
ignem
.
Those
who
haue
done
things
deseruing
temporall
paines
,
shall
passe
by
a
certaine
purgatorie
fyre
,
of
which
the
Apostle
saith
:
he
shall
be
saued
,
yet
so
as
it
were
by
fire
.
So
that
all
this
which
the
kinght
vtters
of
S.
Gregorie
,
is
friuolous
,
&
vntrue
,
as
these
testimonies
conuince
.
Onelie
one
place
which
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
out
of
S.
Augustin
,
carieth
some
more
apparence
then
the
rest
.
Where
in
his
booke
de
vanitate
saeculi
the
first
chapter
he
saith
thus
.
Knowe
that
when
the
soule
is
separated
from
the
bodie
,
presentlie
it
is
either
placed
in
Paradise
for
it
good
workes
,
or
cast
headlong
in
to
the
bottome
of
hell
for
it
sinnes
.
To
which
I
say
First
,
that
booke
attributed
to
Sainct
Austin
is
not
founde
in
the
Index
of
his
seuerall
workes
collected
by
Possidonius
nor
cited
by
Beda
in
his
commentarie
vpon
the
Apostles
of
S.
Paule
consisting
of
the
sentences
of
S.
Aug.
Wherefore
it
is
noted
by
Bellar.
de
scrip
.
Eccles.
not
to
be
his
:
yet
because
it
is
printed
among
his
workes
&
perhaps
composed
by
some
ancient
author
:
I
answere
Secondlie
that
suppose
it
is
his
worke
yet
S.
Augustin
speaketh
onelie
of
those
that
either
dye
in
mortall
sinne
,
or
of
those
that
die
quite
free
from
sinne
&
all
punishment
due
vnto
it
,
as
martyrs
doe
.
Thirdlie
I
answere
that
S.
Augustin
speaketh
there
onelie
of
those
two
places
to
which
all
soules
are
finallie
destinated
,
and
to
one
of
which
generallie
speaking
,
&
for
the
most
parte
,
euerie
one
presentlie
passeth
,
yet
as
there
is
no
rule
so
generall
which
doth
not
admit
exception
so
doth
this
generall
sentence
of
sainct
Augustin
include
those
onelie
who
dye
in
either
of
those
states
which
he
mentioneth
in
that
place
,
that
is
either
absolutely
in
such
good
workes
as
presentlie
deserue
paradise
,
or
els
in
such
ill
workes
as
presentlie
deserue
the
paines
of
hell
;
&
yet
it
admitteth
an
exception
in
others
who
passe
out
of
this
world
in
neyther
of
those
two
states
,
but
are
of
those
whome
the
same
S.
Augustin
in
an
other
place
calleth
nec
valde
bonos
nec
valde
malos
:
or
,
mediocriter
malos
&
mediocriter
bonos
.
Lastely
I
aduertise
the
reader
of
the
smale
fidelitie
which
Sir
Humfrey
vseth
in
the
citation
of
this
place
of
S.
Austin
traslating
those
words
pro
meritis
bonis
:
for
his
good
merits
,
his
good
works
,
flying
from
the
worde
merit
out
of
his
Puritannicall
spirit
as
a
beare
doth
from
the
ring
.
From
hence
Sir
Humfrey
passeth
to
proue
the
vncertaintie
of
Indulgences
&
honour
of
images
by
the
testimonies
of
the
Romanists
,
but
the
trueth
is
none
of
them
proue
anie
vncertainlie
among
the
Romanists
touching
the
substantiall
points
themselues
,
for
all
the
authours
which
he
citeth
here
for
this
purpose
doe
vniformelie
consent
in
both
those
particulars
of
exhibition
of
honour
to
images
,
&
aboute
the
power
&
lawfullnesse
of
the
vse
of
Indulgences
as
wee
haue
showed
before
.
And
onelie
ther
is
some
vncertainlie
in
that
which
is
not
determined
by
the
Church
,
as
for
example
how
farre
Indulgences
are
extended
,
&
aboute
the
begining
of
the
practise
,
what
maner
of
honour
is
due
to
images
,
&
the
like
,
which
questions
are
out
of
the
subiect
of
this
section
the
title
of
which
is
,
if
Sir
Humfrey
remembreth
,
of
the
certainlie
of
the
reformers
faith
,
&
vncertainlie
of
the
Romish
faith
,
&
not
of
such
disputable
questions
as
the
Romanists
in
the
cited
places
speake
of
.
Wher
also
it
is
to
be
noted
by
the
way
that
the
kinght
ahuseth
S.
Thomas
,
first
in
that
he
affirmeth
him
to
teach
that
the
image
of
Christ
is
to
be
adored
with
diuine
honour
.
For
although
it
is
true
that
S.
Thomas
sayth
that
seeing
that
Christ
is
adored
with
adoration
of
latria
,
it
is
consequent
that
his
image
is
to
be
adored
with
adoration
of
Latria
:
neuerthelesse
the
same
S.
Thomas
addeth
afterwardes
,
non
propter
ipsam
imaginem
,
sed
propter
rem
cuius
imago
est
,
meaning
that
altho'
both
Christ
&
his
image
be
adored
with
the
same
externall
action
of
diuine
honour
which
he
calleth
adoration
of
Latria
,
yet
is
not
the
Latria
it selfe
or
diuine
honour
in
spirit
&
truth
attributed
or
exhibited
to
the
picture
,
but
onelie
to
Christ
himselfe
by
reason
of
his
diuinitie
,
which
diuinitie
as
S.
Thomas
knew
it
not
to
be
truelie
&
reallie
in
the
picture
,
so
knew
he
also
that
diuine
worship
ought
not
to
be
giuen
to
the
same
not
as
much
as
by
accident
,
but
onelie
that
the
externall
adoration
,
or
externall
action
of
Latria
or
the
matter
of
it
was
so
to
be
exhibited
to
the
image
that
the
formall
parte
ther
of
,
that
is
the
affection
of
the
mynde
ought
wholelie
to
be
cast
vpon
Christ
himselfe
represented
by
the
same
.
Secondlie
I
say
that
the
knight
abuseth
S.
Thomas
in
that
he
calleth
him
the
founder
of
image
worship
,
whereas
yet
he
himselfe
had
cited
the
seuenth
Synod
immediately
before
which
vseth
the
same
terme
of
adoration
,
and
that
which
is
more
the
foresayd
Synod
is
alledged
by
Sir
Humfrey
in
another
place
for
the
authour
of
idolatrie
,
which
neuerthelesse
was
celebrated
some
hundreths
of
yeares
before
Sainct
Thomas
of
Aquin
was
borne
.
And
altho'
this
doctrine
of
his
is
some
what
obscure
in
the
termes
which
he
deliuereth
it
,
&
soundeth
harshelie
in
the
eares
of
the
common
people
,
yet
as
it
is
true
in
the
sense
he
speaketh
it
,
so
may
it
also
be
so
explicated
by
pastours
,
&
preachers
,
that
euen
children
themselues
may
be
capable
of
it
,
especiallie
if
first
they
be
tould
in
generall
that
no
picture
is
to
be
honored
by
it selfe
,
without
relation
,
or
reference
to
the
prototype
,
or
thing
it
represents
,
or
for
itselfe
;
&
that
whensoeuer
they
exhibit
anie
act
of
honour
towardes
an
image
,
they
must
withall
fixe
their
mynde
&
affection
vpon
that
onelie
which
it
representeth
,
referring
the
whole
action
finallie
&
lastelie
not
to
the
picture
,
but
to
the
thing
pictured
:
euen
as
they
doe
who
bowe
or
make
courtisie
to
a
man
whome
they
salute
&
honour
by
touching
his
garment
(
as
the
fashion
in
some
places
)
in
which
action
of
honour
altho'
the
exterior
signe
is
directed
as
well
to
the
apparell
as
to
the
man
him selfe
,
or
rather
more
immediatelie
to
the
apparell
then
to
the
person
,
yet
the
internall
affection
of
the
saluter
is
settled
vpon
the
person
onelie
where
finallie
it
stayeth
&
remayneth
.
An
so
it
is
in
the
worship
of
the
images
of
Christ
&
his
Saints
,
in
which
there
is
no
more
daunger
or
showe
of
idolatrie
then
there
is
danger
of
excesse
of
ciuill
reuerence
towardes
him
whose
garment
is
honored
in
the
manner
before
described
.
And
according
to
this
if
Sir
Humfrey
&
his
blynde
mates
had
but
light
of
vnderstanding
to
conceiue
it
,
they
should
not
need
to
feare
anie
danger
of
idolatrie
in
the
Romanists
,
tho'
they
were
neuer
so
ignorant
,
or
simple
,
but
those
might
more
iustlie
feare
spirituall
idolatrie
in
themselues
who
doe
so
much
adore
the
Idol
of
their
owne
priuate
spirit
that
they
will
not
yeald
to
the
iudgement
of
the
most
vniuersall
Church
,
and
to
those
who
are
both
farre
more
in
number
,
&
incomparablie
farre
more
learned
&
religious
then
all
the
impugners
of
honor
due
to
the
images
of
Christ
and
his
Saints
.
And
yet
vpon
supposition
of
this
same
false
idol
of
his
owne
conceite
that
all
kynde
of
reuerence
done
to
any
kynde
of
image
is
idolatry
,
Sir
Humfrey
doth
most
shamefullie
calumniate
Gregorius
de
Valentia
affirming
him
to
maintaine
that
there
is
a
kynde
of
lawfull
idolatrie
.
Whereas
the
foresaid
learned
diuine
onelie
sayth
that
a
man
might
not
obscurelie
gather
out
of
S.
Peters
wordes
in
his
first
epistle
chapter
34.
vers.
3.
that
he
insinuateth
that
some
worship
of
images
to
wit
,
of
sacred
images
,
is
lawfull
,
&
reight
,
by
reason
that
sainct
Peter
speaking
against
idolatrie
,
he
calleth
it
not
absolutelie
worship
of
images
,
but
vnlawfull
worship
of
images
,
illicitos
simulacrorum
cultus
.
Which
discourse
of
Valentia
how
well
grounded
it
may
seeme
,
I
will
not
dispute
.
But
this
I
assure
my selfe
that
defence
of
idolatrie
was
so
farre
from
the
toughts
of
that
pious
man
(
as
plainelie
appeareth
by
the
rest
of
his
doctrine
euen
in
the
place
cited
)
that
if
Sir
Humfrey
either
had
not
beene
verie
full
of
corrupted
meaning
,
or
had
not
had
great
want
of
matter
for
the
finishing
of
his
false
dealing
in
this
section
,
&
for
his
last
plaudite
there
in
,
hee
would
not
haue
had
the
face
to
abuse
so
much
the
innocencie
of
so
sincere
a
writer
.
Especiallie
considering
that
altho'
Valentia
had
committed
such
a
grosse
errour
as
to
defende
some
kynde
of
Idolatrie
to
be
lawfull
,
yet
had
his
errour
ben
wholelie
impertinent
to
proue
the
vncertaintie
of
the
Romish
faith
in
the
doctrine
of
honour
of
images
,
which
is
the
point
here
in
controuersie
;
of
which
Valentia
being
knowe
not
to
haue
euer
doubted
in
anie
parte
of
his
workes
,
whatsoeuer
orher
absurditie
he
might
be
supposed
to
haue
taught
in
that
matter
,
it
can
not
argue
anie
disagreement
from
the
rest
of
the
Romanists
in
this
particular
.
The
knight
also
citeteth
Bellarmin
&
Canus
But
I
haue
before
sufficientlie
declared
their
meaning
in
an
other
occasion
,
and
as
for
Canus
,
he
by
laboring
to
establish
his
owne
singular
opinion
that
matrimonie
is
no
Sacrament
but
onelie
a
ciuill
contract
except
it
be
celebrated
by
a
Preist
with
sacred
&
solemne
wordes
as
he
is
an
Ecclesiasticall
minister
,
onelie
alledgeth
the
vncertaintie
of
the
doctrine
of
diuines
touching
the
determinate
matter
,
&
forme
of
that
Sacrament
,
and
aboute
the
manner
how
it
giueth
grace
,
or
rather
when
it
giueth
grace
&
when
it
doth
not
,
by
reason
he
holds
it
vncertaine
among
diuines
whether
it
be
a
sacrament
or
not
,
except
in
those
cases
in
which
it
is
celebrated
by
the
Preist
,
&
by
consequence
he
holdes
it
vncertaine
among
diuines
whether
in
those
occasions
it
conferres
grace
to
the
receiuers
,
which
he
will
not
haue
for
a
matter
of
faith
,
nor
yet
more
then
the
more
common
opinion
,
The
X.
PERIOD
.
THIS
Period
shall
conteine
the
eleuenth
section
of
the
knights
booke
,
in
which
.
He
indeuoreth
to
proue
by
the
testimonies
of
his
aduersaries
that
there
is
greater
benefit
,
confort
&
saftie
of
the
soule
in
his
faith
,
then
in
the
Romish
.
And
this
his
taske
he
beginneth
with
great
grauitie
saying
that
he
proceeds
from
the
certaine
way
to
the
safe
way
.
Against
which
position
neuerthelesse
if
one
were
disposed
to
proceed
according
to
rigour
of
Philosophie
,
he
might
easilie
demonstrate
a
plaine
impossibilitie
in
it
by
an
argument
ad
hominem
.
For
if
as
Sir
Humfrey
houldes
there
is
no
certaintie
in
the
Romish
faith
&
way
,
&
that
all
the
certaintie
is
in
his
owne
as
he
hitherto
hath
labored
to
shewe
,
then
can
he
not
truelie
say
that
his
way
is
the
safer
way
,
for
that
the
worde
safer
inuolueth
a
comparison
betweene
two
which
are
both
safe
,
because
a
comparison
as
Philosophie
teacheth
,
cannot
be
but
betwixt
things
of
the
same
common
nature
,
comparatio
non
est
nisi
inter
resciusdem
generis
.
Wherefore
since
that
according
to
the
tenet
of
Sir
Humfrey
there
is
neyther
certaintie
nor
safetie
in
the
Romish
faith
,
&
yet
that
,
as
he
supposeth
,
they
are
both
in
his
owne
,
it
is
consequent
that
altho'
it
were
a
safe
way
,
yet
vpon
his
supposition
it
cannot
possible
be
truelie
called
either
a
safer
way
,
or
of
more
confort
&
benefit
then
the
Romish
way
.
To
say
nothing
of
our
knights
presumption
&
folly
in
offering
to
call
that
a
more
safe
,
more
confortable
,
&
more
profitable
way
to
the
soule
,
which
as
yet
he
hath
not
shewed
with
anie
probabilitie
either
before
or
now
in
this
section
,
to
haue
anie
one
of
those
attributes
in
it
,
but
hath
beene
rather
by
mee
alreadie
conuinced
to
be
voyde
of
them
all
.
Ad
altho'
this
generall
ansere
might
serue
for
all
Sir
Humfrey
bringeth
in
this
place
,
as
being
in
substance
but
a
newe
repetition
of
the
same
points
of
doctrine
of
which
he
treated
in
seuerall
places
before
:
yet
to
giue
him
fuller
satisfaction
,
and
because
tho'
the
doctrine
be
the
same
,
yet
the
application
is
different
:
I
will
descend
to
particular
examen
of
it
.
He
begins
with
Bellarmin
whom
he
citeth
as
a
confesser
of
the
all
sufficientie
of
scripture
as
he
tearmeth
it
,
but
it
is
as
cleare
as
day
that
Bellarmin
made
not
anie
such
confession
ther
being
not
anie
such
worde
or
sense
to
be
founde
in
his
workes
,
but
rather
the
quite
contrarie
is
founde
euen
in
the
same
booke
which
Sir
Humfrey
here
citeth
,
in
which
he
expresselie
confesseth
&
professeth
traditions
to
be
necessarie
besides
the
scriptures
,
yea
&
in
the
very-next
wordes
to
those
which
the
knight
citeth
he
addeth
that
all
other
things
(
meanig
besydes
those
which
the
Apostles
publikelie
&
commonlie
preached
to
all
men
)
are
not
written
.
His
wordes
are
these
in
Latin
.
Dico
illa
omnia
scripta
esse
ab
Apostolis
quae
sunt
omnibus
necessaria
,
&
quae
ipsi
palam
omnibus
vulgo
praedicauurunt
,
alia
autem
non
omnia
scripta
esse
.
I
say
that
all
those
things
are
written
by
the
Apostles
which
are
necessarie
to
all
men
,
&
which
they
openlie
preached
to
all
vulgarlie
or
commonlie
,
but
all
other
things
are
not
written
.
Which
last
wordes
not
with
standing
they
are
a
parte
of
the
same
position
or
sentence
,
&
conteine
the
very
point
of
difficultie
in
this
controuersie
:
yet
by
a
notorious
imposture
Sir
Humfrey
left
them
out
,
&
so
at
one
stroake
quite
corrupteth
both
Bellarmins
sense
&
sentence
.
Wherfore
,
qui
legit
intelligat
,
he
that
shall
read
Bellarmine
in
the
place
cited
by
the
knight
,
that
is
de
verbo
Dei
non
scripto
lib.
4.
cap.
11.
Will
easilie
preceiue
him
to
be
so
farre
frome
the
confessing
all
sufficiency
of
scripture
in
that
sense
in
which
the
reformers
take
it
,
that
the
verie
title
of
his
booke
,
which
is
of
the
vnwritten
worde
,
doth
manifestlie
conuince
the
contrarie
.
And
as
for
the
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
cited
altho'
we
take
them
in
that
mangled
manner
in
which
he
hath
rehearsed
them
yet
if
they
had
ben
reight
vnderstood
by
him
,
I
ame
persuaded
he
could
haue
founde
no
iuste
coulor
to
produce
them
in
fauour
of
himselfe
.
For
that
it
is
manifest
by
those
two
limitations
,
necessarie
for
all
men
,
&
preached
generally
to
all
men
,
that
the
Cardinalls
meaning
could
not
be
that
absolutelie
all
things
which
are
necessarie
for
euerie
person
or
state
of
persons
in
particular
,
or
as
the
logitians
speake
,
necessarie
either
pro
singulis
generum
or
pro
generibus
singulorum
,
are
written
in
the
scriptures
:
but
onely
Bellarmin
meant
that
altho'
all
those
things
are
written
which
all
men
both
in
generall
&
in
particular
must
necessarilie
knowe
,
&
haue
for
the
obteining
of
saluation
,
yet
that
there
are
some
other
things
necessarie
to
some
particular
persons
or
to
some
particular
states
of
persons
included
in
that
generall
number
of
all
men
,
which
are
not
written
,
as
namelie
aboute
the
Gouernment
of
the
Church
&
administration
of
the
Sacraments
,
&
in
particular
the
Baptizme
of
children
,
&
the
rites
of
the
same
,
&
that
the
beptizme
of
Heretikes
is
valid
.
All
which
Bellarmin
doth
so
plainelie
specify
that
it
is
imposible
for
him
that
reades
&
vnderstands
him
,
to
doubt
of
this
his
meaning
.
And
yet
not
vnlike
to
this
doth
Sir
Humfrey
proceed
with
the
same
Bellarmin
whome
he
citeth
to
the
same
purpose
in
his
first
booke
of
the
worde
of
God
:
wher
out
of
these
his
wordes
,
the
scripture
is
a
most
certaine
,
&
most
safe
rule
of
beleeuing
,
the
kinght
concludeth
that
it
is
a
safer
way
to
rely
wholely
vpon
the
worde
of
God
which
can
not
erre
,
then
vpon
the
Pope
or
Church
which
is
the
authoritie
of
man
,
sayth
hee
,
&
may
erre
.
Which
conclusion
neuerthelesse
is
most
false
,
&
captious
,
as
well
in
regarde
that
according
to
Sir
Humfreys
owne
confession
Bellarmin
houldeth
the
scripture
to
be
but
a
partiall
rule
of
faith
;
a
most
certaine
,
&
most
safe
rule
,
he
doth
not
exclude
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
or
diuine
tradition
,
but
expresselie
includeth
them
both
as
the
other
parte
of
the
totall
rule
of
faith
,
which
scripture
also
,
so
onelie
,
&
not
otherwise
,
he
calleth
with
great
reason
regula
credendi
certissima
&
tutissima
,
knowing
neuerthelesse
on
the
contrarie
&
supposing
for
certaine
that
with
out
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
&
traditions
the
scripture
can
neither
be
knowne
to
be
true
Scripture
,
not
in
what
sense
it
is
to
be
vnderstood
,
&
consequentlie
as
Sir
Humfrey
taketh
it
,
it
is
not
either
an
all
sufficient
,
certaine
,
or
safe
rule
,
&
by
&
an
other
consequence
,
it
can
much
lesse
be
imagined
to
be
a
safer
way
to
relie
wholelie
vpon
the
written
worde
as
the
reformers
doe
then
to
rely
vpon
both
the
scriptures
,
&
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
&
diuine
traditions
,
as
doe
the
Romanists
,
taking
God
for
their
Father
in
the
written
worde
,
&
the
visible
Church
for
their
mother
in
the
knowledge
,
interpretation
,
&
sense
of
the
same
.
And
thus
wee
see
by
this
discourse
,
that
Sir
Humfrey
proueth
nothing
but
his
owne
dishonest
dealing
with
Bellar.
whom
besides
that
which
I
haue
alreadie
showed
,
he
doth
more
then
impudenlie
belie
in
that
he
affirmeth
him
to
allowe
the
worde
of
God
to
be
but
a
pertiall
rule
of
faith
,
which
Bellarmin
doth
not
say
,
but
onelie
that
the
scripture
is
a
partiall
rule
,
The
knight
still
passeth
on
his
way
,
&
tells
his
reader
it
is
a
safer
way
to
adore
Christ
Iesus
sitting
on
the
reight
hand
of
God
the
Father
then
to
adore
the
Sactamentall
bread
which
depends
vpon
the
intention
of
the
Preist
.
But
I
tell
him
againe
that
the
safest
way
of
all
is
to
adore
Christ
both
in
Heauen
,
&
whersoeuer
els
he
is
.
And
he
himselfe
hath
tould
vs
his
bodie
&
blood
are
in
the
Sacrament
,
whe●
if
wee
will
not
be
accounted
infidels
wee
most
constantlie
beleeue
he
is
.
And
so
we
say
with
that
most
auncient
&
vanerable
Father
Saint
Cyrill
of
Ierusalem
,
since
that
Christ
himselfe
affirmeth
so
,
&
saith
of
the
bread
:
this
is
my
bodie
,
who
dareth
here
after
to
doubt
of
it
?
&
he
also
confirming
,
&
saying
:
this
is
my
bloud
,
who
can
doubte
,
&
say
it
is
not
his
bloud
?
And
supposing
this
his
reall
presence
which
we
Romanists
trulie
beleeue
with
auncient
S.
Cyrill
&
the
rest
of
the
Fethers
,
the
safest
way
is
to
adore
him
in
the
Sacrament
&
not
as
sitting
at
the
reight
hand
of
his
Father
onelie
.
But
as
for
you
reformers
as
it
can
not
be
safe
for
you
to
denie
Christs
reall
presence
in
the
Eucharist
,
so
neither
is
it
safe
for
you
to
refuse
to
adore
him
there
where
in
the
true
Sacrament
he
is
truelie
present
.
I
knowe
Sir
kinght
you
make
your
comparison
betweene
the
adoration
of
Christ
in
Heauen
&
the
adoration
of
the
Sacramentall
bread
,
but
it
proceds
vpon
a
false
supposition
,
for
the
Romanists
adore
not
the
bread
,
but
Christ
vnder
the
forme
of
bread
,
whose
existence
there
,
doth
not
so
much
depend
vpon
the
intention
of
the
Preist
,
but
that
sufficient
certaintie
may
be
had
of
the
same
&
at
the
least
much
more
then
you
can
haue
that
you
receiue
a
true
Sacrament
whe
you
take
the
bread
at
the
ministers
hand
,
who
if
he
hath
no
intention
to
doe
it
as
Christ
did
when
he
gaue
it
to
his
disciples
,
then
may
you
receiue
as
much
at
your
owne
table
as
at
the
communion
table
.
But
the
trueth
is
that
all
this
is
nothing
but
captious
cogging
in
Sir
Humfrey
;
for
proofe
of
which
he
most
impertinentlie
produceth
S.
Aug.
de
bono
pers.
lib.
13.
cap.
6.
Wher
he
hath
not
a
worde
to
this
purpose
but
onelie
treateth
there
of
the
supernaturall
actions
of
man
,
saying
that
to
the
end
our
confession
may
be
humble
&
lowlie
,
it
is
a
safer
way
to
attribute
them
wholelie
to
God
,
because
although
we
will
,
yet
it
is
God
that
worketh
in
vs
to
worke
.
All
which
is
quite
out
of
this
matter
,
&
serueth
for
nothing
but
to
stoppe
holes
with
a
vaneflorish
graunded
onelie
vpon
the
wordes
safe
way
which
the
knight
founde
in
S.
Augustin
to
sounde
to
his
owne
tune
&
ther
vpon
founded
a
verball
argument
.
And
the
like
dictionariall
maner
of
proofe
doth
he
vse
wherby
to
showe
his
safer
way
in
the
points
of
priuate
Masse
&
communion
in
both
kyndes
but
most
rediculously
.
For
whereas
he
findeth
in
some
of
the
Romanists
that
the
Masse
as
being
not
onelie
a
sacrifice
but
also
a
Sacrament
is
both
more
commendablie
administred
&
more
frutfullie
receiued
when
both
Preist
&
people
together
are
partakers
of
it
,
Sir
Humfrey
applyeth
this
to
the
Raphsodie
of
the
reformed
Churches
:
which
neuerthelesse
hath
not
a
scrap
in
it
either
of
true
sacrifice
or
Sacrament
,
but
is
onely
a
pore
hungerie
scamling
of
bread
&
wine
not
conformable
either
to
the
forme
of
the
ancient
Lythurgies
of
S.
Chrysostome
or
S.
Basil
,
nor
euer
heard
on
in
the
Christian
world
before
the
dayes
of
Luther
,
and
of
so
smale
estimation
euen
among
themselues
that
if
it
chance
to
fall
,
they
will
scarce
take
paines
to
take
it
from
the
grounde
,
as
may
appeare
by
a
prittie
passage
of
that
nature
which
not
manie
yeares
past
I
receiued
from
the
mouth
of
one
who
was
then
of
the
ministrie
,
what
he
is
nowe
I
knowe
not
,
who
tould
me
that
coming
in
to
a
certaine
Church
,
the
minister
as
he
deliuered
the
communion
to
his
parishoners
did
let
a
peace
fall
from
him
,
but
there
was
not
one
in
the
whole
congregation
excepting
a
dogge
that
showed
so
much
deuotion
towardes
their
vnuenerable
Sacrament
as
once
to
offer
to
take
it
from
the
grounde
.
It
is
true
he
tould
me
with
all
that
the
honest
minister
by
tasting
a
little
to
often
of
the
cup
was
some
what
distempered
in
his
head
,
but
that
me
thought
was
but
a
pore
excuse
for
a
man
of
his
coate
,
&
a
teacher
of
reformed
doctrine
,
especiallie
at
such
a
tyme
&
in
such
an
occasion
.
Which
want
of
respect
in
the
reformed
brothers
towards
their
communion
,
doth
yet
further
appeare
if
we
compare
it
with
the
extraordinarie
great
diligence
&
care
which
the
Preists
&
people
vse
in
the
Roman
Church
for
the
auoyding
of
all
Kynde
of
irreuerence
towardes
the
holie
Eucharist
as
both
the
rubrickes
of
the
Missal
,
the
ancient
Canons
,
&
dayly
practice
testifie
,
in
so
much
that
one
,
&
perhaps
the
cheefest
reason
of
the
restrainte
of
the
Sacramentall
Cup
to
the
laytie
was
for
the
auoyding
of
such
irreuerences
as
might
easilie
haue
happened
among
such
multitudes
of
people
as
vse
to
Communicate
at
one
tyme
in
the
Roman
Church
.
So
that
now
we
see
it
was
great
absurditie
in
Sir
Humfrey
to
argue
the
greater
saftie
of
the
doctrine
of
his
Church
out
of
that
which
the
Romanists
speake
onelie
of
their
owne
,
especiallie
considering
there
is
not
one
worde
of
safetie
to
be
founde
in
anie
of
the
places
cited
by
him
,
the
authours
of
them
not
intending
to
show
anie
lesse
safetie
to
be
founde
either
in
the
doctrine
or
practice
of
the
Roman
Church
concerning
priuate
Masse
&
single
communion
,
but
onelie
at
the
most
,
that
some
more
spirituall
profit
would
redounde
to
the
people
then
nowe
doth
,
if
either
their
deuotion
were
so
farre
extended
as
that
in
euerie
Masse
some
would
communicate
,
or
that
the
Church
,
in
other
respects
had
greater
reason
to
permit
the
vse
of
the
Chalis
to
the
laitie
then
not
to
permit
it
,
alwayes
supposing
as
a
certaine
trueth
that
not
withstanding
in
some
respects
the
contrarie
to
that
which
is
nowe
practized
might
be
more
profitable
yet
,
that
all
circumstances
considered
that
is
the
safest
for
mens
consciences
which
is
done
according
to
the
present
custome
of
that
Church
which
is
knowne
euen
by
our
aduersaries
to
haue
visibly
succeeded
from
the
Apostles
,
at
the
least
personallie
,
&
is
also
knowne
euen
by
Iewes
&
gentils
to
be
the
most
vniuersall
Church
in
the
Christian
world
.
And
let
this
be
sufficient
to
redargue
the
proceedings
of
the
knight
in
this
matter
,
yet
not
omitting
that
two
of
the
authours
he
citeth
for
Romanists
to
wit
the
Apostata
Deane
&
Cassander
,
are
not
such
,
&
that
in
the
citation
of
Bellarmin
he
vseth
one
of
his
accustomed
trickes
,
&
whose
wordes
although
he
rehearseth
them
truelie
in
the
margen
,
yet
he
translateth
them
corruptedlie
.
For
whereas
Bellarmin
saith
that
the
Masse
in
which
communicants
are
present
,
is
more
perfect
&
legitimate
,
ex
hac
parte
,
that
is
in
as
much
as
it
is
ordained
to
the
spirituall
refection
of
the
people
,
the
knight
omitteth
in
his
translation
the
wordes
ex
hac
parte
,
&
by
that
tricke
doth
notablie
peruert
Bellarmin's
meaning
,
making
the
reader
beleeue
he
affirmed
that
absolutelie
,
which
neuerthelesse
he
did
expresselie
&
purposelie
vtter
with
limitation
,
with
an
intention
to
showe
that
altho'
in
one
respect
priuate
masse
is
lesse
perfect
,
&
lesse
conformable
to
the
ancient
custome
of
the
Church
in
regarde
of
the
profit
of
the
people
,
yet
that
absolutelie
in
it selfe
it
is
as
perfect
&
lawfull
as
that
in
which
communicants
are
present
.
Furthermore
touching
the
mariage
of
ministers
,
Sir
Humfrey
sayth
it
will
appeare
by
the
confessions
of
the
Romanists
that
it
is
the
safer
way
to
liue
chastlie
in
matrimony
then
by
a
single
life
to
hazarde
their
soules
by
incontinencie
,
thus
the
knight
which
if
he
meanes
of
the
ministers
of
his
owne
misreformed
Church
onelie
,
I
will
easilie
graunt
that
supposing
their
slipperie
inclination
to
lecherie
,
and
the
smale
meanes
they
vse
for
mortification
of
the
flesh
&
conseruation
of
chastitie
,
it
is
a
safer
way
in
my
opinion
for
them
to
marrie
then
to
liue
a
single
life
,
especillie
considering
they
are
no
true
Preists
but
onelie
equiuocall
Clergie
men
both
in
Order
&
function
,
&
that
if
they
had
not
wiues
it
is
to
be
doubted
the
maydes
of
their
parishes
would
scarcelie
liue
with
out
danger
among
them
.
But
if
Sir
Humfrey
speakes
of
Roman
Preists
which
haue
true
vocation
,
true
ordination
&
sacred
function
,
then
I
will
say
with
diuers
graue
authors
that
if
the
Preists
of
the
old
testament
obserued
those
dayes
continencie
in
which
they
sacrificed
by
their
turnes
,
then
ought
the
Preists
of
the
new
testament
to
obserue
chastitie
euerie
day
,
because
,
they
euerie
day
offer
sacrifice
.
And
therefore
the
Roman
Church
hath
most
religiouslie
ordained
the
lawe
of
perpetuall
chastitie
of
Preists
,
for
that
altho'
perhaps
it
may
seeme
more
safe
for
some
particular
persons
to
marrie
supposing
their
negligence
&
frayltie
in
that
nature
:
&
abstracting
from
a
vowe
alreadie
made
,
&
the
lawe
of
the
Church
in
that
particular
,
yet
althings
considered
,
&
for
as
much
as
euen
the
most
inclined
to
vice
may
liue
chaste
with
Gods
grace
if
they
will
make
vse
of
his
gifts
,
&
of
such
meanes
as
the
Church
hath
ordained
for
that
end
&
purpose
;
it
is
to
be
iudged
better
,
safer
,
&
greater
honour
to
God
,
that
the
whole
state
of
Preisthood
or
Sacerdoce
should
be
tyed
with
the
sacred
band
of
perpetuall
chastitie
.
And
touching
Panormitan
whome
Sir
Humfrey
calles
a
great
Canonist
I
will
not
examen
how
great
he
was
in
that
science
:
yet
I
doe
not
see
why
his
authoritie
should
be
accounted
great
in
the
Roman
Church
,
supposing
he
was
onelie
a
Scismaticall
Cardinall
of
the
scismaticall
Pope
Felix
.
Secondlie
suppose
he
were
as
great
a
Canonist
as
the
author
of
the
Canons
himselfe
,
yet
doth
his
great
authoritie
fauore
Sir
Humfreyes
cause
neuer
a
iot
in
regarde
he
doth
not
affirme
,
as
the
latter
parte
of
the
32.
article
of
the
English
Creed
doth
,
that
it
is
lawfull
also
for
Bishops
,
Preists
&
Deacons
,
as
for
all
other
Christian
men
to
marrye
at
their
owne
discretion
:
But
Panormitan
onelie
sayde
(
to
vse
his
owne
wordes
)
I
beleeued
it
were
a
holsome
statute
for
the
good
&
health
of
soules
)
that
these
who
will
containe
,
&
merit
more
maybe
lefte
to
their
owne
wills
:
but
those
that
ar
not
able
to
containe
,
may
marrie
.
Because
experience
tsacheth
that
the
quite
contrarie
effect
followeth
of
that
lawe
of
continencie
.
In
which
saying
altho'
I
must
needs
confesse
,
he
erred
in
presuming
to
prescribe
a
new
rule
to
the
Church
,
yet
is
it
plaine
he
differs
frome
the
faith
of
Sir
Humfrey
in
this
point
in
diuers
respects
.
First
in
that
he
vttered
not
this
as
a
matter
either
of
faith
,
or
yet
of
morall
certaintie
,
but
onelie
deliuered
it
as
his
owne
priuate
opinion
.
How
be
it
Sir
Humfrey
hearing
the
sounde
of
the
worde
Credo
(
as
it
seemes
)
he
presentlie
conceiued
it
to
be
as
certaine
as
the
Apostles
Creed
it selfe
or
at
the
least
desired
his
reader
might
so
apprehend
it
.
Secondlie
Panormitan
doth
not
affirme
absolutelie
that
it
is
either
holsome
or
yet
as
much
as
lawfull
for
Preists
to
marrie
notobstanding
the
precept
of
the
Roman
Church
to
the
contrarie
(
as
our
nouelists
doe
who
also
condemne
that
lawe
of
single
lyfe
for
iniuste
,
it
were
good
,
&
behouefull
,
&
attrihutes
the
surmised
Licentiousnesse
of
the
Catholike
clergie
to
the
lawe
of
celibate
it selfe
,
whereas
the
author
onelie
saith
.
sequitur
ex
lege
,
the
contrarie
effect
followeth
of
the
lawe
.
And
by
occasion
of
this
passage
,
the
reader
may
reflect
what
a
pore
shifte
Sir
Humfrey
was
forced
to
vse
for
excuse
of
the
falacitie
of
his
misreformed
ministrie
when
he
catched
at
the
authoritie
of
this
one
Apochryphal
Cardinall
,
who
neuerthelesse
vpon
due
examen
appeares
to
haue
so
much
frustate
his
sinister
expectation
.
Now
for
Aeneas
Syluius
,
the
doth
lesse
fauore
Sir
Humfreys
tenet
,
nay
not
at
all
,
as
his
owne
wordes
aboue
quoted
in
the
margen
doe
manifest
to
the
reader
.
He
onelie
speaketh
by
a
perhaps
it
were
not
worse
that
verie
manie
Preists
had
wiues
:
&
yet
this
he
recalled
of
his
owne
accorde
after
his
assuption
to
the
cheefe
Pontificall
seat
or
Popedome
,
by
a
speciall
Bull
of
retractation
of
that
&
some
other
immature
positions
vttered
in
his
youth
.
So
that
the
kinght
was
farre
out
of
his
way
,
when
for
the
safetye
of
this
parte
of
his
new
diuised
way
,
he
produced
these
authors
,
&
if
he
haue
no
better
garde
&
defense
for
it
than
the
testimonie
of
them
(
as
in
truth
he
hath
not
)
then
ought
euerie
one
to
take
heed
of
it
,
&
auoide
it
as
a
most
vnquoth
,
&
perilous
path
.
And
so
to
conclude
this
I
may
not
vnfitly
say
with
Erasmus
:
quae
malum
est
ista
tanta
salacitas
in
nostris
uouis
Euangelistis
vt
sine
vxoribus
esse
non
possint
?
what
in
the
mischeefe
,
saith
Erasmus
,
a
great
inclination
to
lecherie
is
this
in
our
newe
Euangelists
that
they
can
not
be
with
out
wiues
?
An
I
say
further
that
if
they
persuade
themselues
they
can
not
possible
containe
,
&
therfore
must
needs
be
marryed
;
at
the
least
why
doe
they
reprehend
Roman
Preists
who
haue
the
contrarie
persuasion
,
for
obledging
themselues
to
a
single
life
?
If
they
vpon
supposition
of
such
carnall
conceits
hould
they
can
not
goe
safe
to
Heauen
without
wiues
at
their
heels
,
why
should
those
be
condemned
who
hould
it
safer
to
goe
without
them
?
An
oculus
tuus
nequam
est
quia
ego
bonus
sum
?
wherefore
doe
the
ministers
censure
the
Roman
Preists
so
seuerlie
for
that
which
is
a
virtue
in
them
?
But
in
deed
it
is
to
be
feared
that
those
who
can
not
possible
liue
chastelie
without
a
woman
,
will
hardlie
content
themselues
with
one
in
all
cases
,
but
rather
some
times
make
bould
with
their
neibours
,
or
at
the
least
fall
to
that
large
axiome
of
lecherous
Luther
,
si
non
velit
vxor
,
veniat
ancilla
,
in
which
I
knowe
not
what
safetie
can
be
found
for
the
soule
,
except
Sir
Humfrey
houldeth
that
for
the
safest
which
is
most
agreable
to
the
delights
of
the
bodie
.
Wherefore
if
we
will
discourse
rather
like
men
then
blatter
like
beasts
,
the
onelie
safetie
that
can
be
had
in
this
matter
,
especiallie
for
Preists
,
is
to
follow
that
melius
facit
of
S.
Paule
1.
Chorinth
.
7.
I
meane
that
statute
of
a
chaste
harte
which
there
he
mentioneth
,
and
this
statute
being
once
well
&
firmelie
made
,
the
melius
est
nubere
hath
no
place
,
but
then
the
spirituall
mariage
of
the
soule
with
Christ
her
sponse
is
made
,
&
then
it
is
to
late
to
vse
that
violent
medicine
;
an
other
antidote
must
be
vsed
for
the
cure
of
that
surfetting
Vri
,
to
wit
mortification
of
the
bodie
,
which
medicine
the
same
Apostle
prescribes
in
an
other
place
saying
,
castigo
corpus
meum
.
And
if
the
reformed
ministers
would
make
vse
of
this
,
then
perhaps
they
would
change
their
opinion
&
account
the
way
of
single
life
safer
then
the
way
of
mariage
,
&
that
way
which
as
S.
Hierome
saith
filleth
Paradise
,
Contra
Iouin
.
not
that
which
filleth
the
world
,
&
finallie
that
which
S.
Paule
counselleth
absolutelie
,
not
that
which
hee
onelie
permitteth
as
a
remedie
for
a
supposed
imperfection
,
which
permission
tho'
it
be
the
easier
way
,
&
therefore
perhaps
is
more
willinglie
imbrased
by
Sir
Humfrey
in
fauor
of
his
deformed
Clergie
,
as
a
man
not
ignorant
of
their
imperfections
in
that
nature
,
yet
was
the
other
euer
commended
as
the
safer
way
both
by
God
&
his
Saints
,
&
generallie
imbraced
by
the
Church
an
clergie
before
the
daies
of
Luther
.
Aboute
prayer
in
an
vnknowne
language
none
of
the
authours
the
knight
citeth
,
affirme
that
it
is
the
safer
way
to
pray
in
a
vulgar
tongue
,
or
yet
,
that
it
is
absolutelie
better
,
but
onelie
secundum
quid
,
that
is
for
the
edification
of
the
Church
as
Caietan
speaketh
,
yet
not
meaning
but
that
is
the
best
&
safest
all
things
considered
which
the
Church
doth
practice
:
which
practice
as
the
same
Caietan
well
kewe
(
as
being
a
Cardinall
of
the
Roman
Church
)
is
to
haue
the
publike
seruice
in
Latin
rather
then
in
the
mother
tongue
for
such
reasons
as
I
haue
deliuered
in
an
other
place
.
And
touching
the
testimonie
of
S.
Thomas
whome
here
the
knight
produceth
in
his
commentarie
vpon
the
14.
chapter
of
the
first
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
(
as
I
suppose
,
for
he
quotes
not
the
place
)
as
affirming
it
is
manifest
that
he
receiues
more
benefit
who
prayes
&
vnderstandes
what
he
sayth
,
because
the
mynde
of
him
who
prayes
&
vnderstandes
not
,
is
without
frute
&
refection
.
To
this
I
anser
,
that
S.
Thomas
doth
not
meane
by
this
that
it
is
better
that
the
publike
seruice
of
the
Church
be
in
a
vulgar
language
which
is
that
wee
here
haue
in
question
,
&
not
the
priuate
prayers
of
euery
particular
person
,
of
which
S.
Thomas
onelie
speakes
,
as
his
owne
wordes
doe
testifie
in
that
place
which
I
haue
exactelie
read
&
duelie
pondered
.
Euer
supposing
that
manie
things
may
be
profitable
for
single
persons
which
yet
in
common
are
esteemed
much
worse
yea
and
in
some
circumstances
absolutelie
ill
,
as
by
examples
which
passe
in
the
lawes
of
temporall
Republikes
may
plainelie
appeare
.
That
which
S.
Thomas
did
doubtlesselie
persuade
him selfe
to
be
true
whome
the
world
knowes
to
haue
dailie
celebrated
Masse
in
Latin
not
in
anie
vulgar
language
.
To
omit
that
euen
those
simple
people
who
praye
in
the
Latin
tongue
altho'
they
want
that
particular
instruction
of
the
vnderstanding
which
the
learned
receiue
in
prayer
,
yet
sans
doubt
they
often
tymes
performe
that
action
with
greater
deuotion
&
feruor
in
their
wills
&
affections
then
the
greatest
schollers
in
the
world
:
God
almightie
by
reason
of
their
pious
&
humble
desires
supplying
as
it
were
in
one
power
that
which
wantes
in
an
other
.
And
the
same
I
say
to
the
wordes
of
Lyra
&
Caietan
who
speeches
to
the
same
purpose
which
S.
Thomas
doth
&
vpon
the
same
place
of
the
Apostle
1.
Cor.
14.
where
altho'
Caietan
extendes
his
speeh
euen
to
publike
prayer
of
the
Church
:
yet
is
it
manifest
that
the
same
Caietan
doth
neither
condemne
the
contrarie
practise
of
the
Roman
Church
,
nor
yet
houldes
it
absolutelie
better
or
safer
that
publike
prayers
were
(
especiallie
in
these
our
tymes
)
not
in
Latin
but
in
the
vulgar
language
.
But
he
onelie
meaneth
that
it
were
better
in
that
one
respect
of
edifying
the
Church
if
other
circumstances
did
also
in
like
paritie
concurre
,
or
if
there
were
not
more
prepondering
reasons
for
the
present
practise
of
the
Church
.
And
therefore
Caietan
presentlie
after
the
wordes
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
addeth
others
which
if
they
had
not
ben
omitted
by
him
,
they
had
quite
cleared
this
difficultie
,
for
so
he
proceedeth
saying
.
Et
ne
intelligeres
reprehendi
a
Paulo
eiusmodi
diuinas
laudes
(
to
wit
such
prayers
as
are
made
in
an
vnknowne
tongue
)
subiungit
:
nam
tu
quidem
bene
gratias
agis
:
by
which
wordes
it
is
plaine
that
Caietan
was
not
of
knight
Humfrey
opinion
in
this
particular
.
Lastelie
the
Rhemes
Testament
cited
by
Sir
Humfrey
vpon
the
same
passage
of
S.
Paule
confesseth
the
same
that
S.
Thomas
sayth
of
a
particular
mans
priuate
deuotion
,
that
in
deed
it
is
not
so
fruetfull
for
instruction
to
him
when
he
prayes
in
a
stange
longuage
,
as
when
he
vnderstandes
his
prayers
,
yet
the
authors
of
the
note
adde
an
other
clause
which
if
the
kinght
had
proceeded
like
a
freind
,
he
ought
not
to
haue
omitted
,
to
wit
that
the
Apostle
forbides
not
such
praying
neither
:
confessing
that
such
a
mans
spirit
,
harte
,
&
affection
prayeth
well
towardes
God
tho'
his
mynde
&
understanding
be
not
profited
to
instruction
,
as
otherwise
it
might
be
if
he
vnderstood
the
words
:
neither
doth
he
appointe
him
to
translate
his
prayer
into
his
vulgar
tonge
&c.
Thus
the
Rhemists
,
Which
as
the
reader
may
easilie
perceiue
doth
quite
contradicte
Sir
Humfreys
purpose
,
&
the
doctrine
&
practise
of
his
Church
.
Sir
Humfrey
also
falsifyes
Gabriel
lect.
12.
in
Can.
or
at
the
he
least
he
falsely
&
ignorantlie
vnderstands
him
,
when
in
his
owne
265.
page
he
cytes
him
,
affirming
that
he
diliuereth
there
seuen
reasons
why
vocall
prayer
should
be
vnderstanded
by
the
people
,
For
Biel
teacheth
not
there
in
what
lenguage
vocall
pryer
ought
to
bee
,
but
onelie
proueth
that
it
must
not
be
meerelie
mentall
but
so
vttered
&
pronounced
as
it
may
be
knowne
for
such
by
the
people
,
vt
innotescat
populo
,
which
wordes
doe
not
signifie
(
as
the
kinght
falselie
English
them
)
may
be
vnderstood
,
but
may
come
to
the
notice
or
hearing
of
the
people
in
regarde
it
is
vocall
prayer
in
what
language
soeuer
it
bee
,
Hebrewe
,
Greke
,
or
Latin
.
For
the
greater
safatie
of
his
reiecting
the
wiship
of
images
he
produces
expresselie
three
onelie
authors
,
two
of
which
neuerthelesse
are
no
Romanists
,
one
of
them
being
the
dimi-Romanist
Erasmus
,
the
other
Cassander
neither
of
whose
authorities
we
admit
for
current
.
It
is
true
the
same
Cassander
brings
out
of
Biel
something
to
the
same
purpose
,
who
supposing
he
be
truelie
alledged
,
yet
it
must
alwayes
be
true
that
one
suallowe
makes
not
summer
,
&
so
what
soeuer
he
sayth
his
authoritie
alone
can
not
ingender
safetie
.
And
since
I
writ
this
by
taking
a
viewe
of
the
authors
themselues
,
I
fynde
that
Sir
Humfrey
hath
thryse
corrupted
Cassander
by
omission
of
some
of
his
wordes
which
he
rehearses
out
of
the
979.
page
of
his
consultation
of
images
:
for
all
that
clause
of
Cassander
:
imaginum
moderato
vsu
pacis
&
tranquilitatis
causa
:
conseruato
:
Sir
Humfrey
lets
quyte
drop
out
of
his
pen
,
which
wordes
not
withstanding
are
of
so
much
importance
to
haue
ben
trulie
related
that
togither
with
some
others
in
the
same
page
(
which
he
also
pretermits
)
they
be
the
onelie
wordes
which
most
declare
the
authors
meaning
touching
the
honor
due
to
images
.
The
wordes
are
these
.
Non
tamen
haec
quae
diximus
eo
pertinent
vt
imagines
sanctorum
si
in
ijs
modo
decorum
seruetur
non
aliquo
honore
illis
conuenienti
,
&
debito
affici
possint
,
videlicet
si
vt
signa
&
monumenta
sanctorum
honorifice
habeantur
&
in
gratiam
illorum
quos
significant
&
referunt
,
reuerenter
conspiciantur
&
tractentur
,
modo
ab
eximo
cultu
temperetur
,
&
nihil
diuinitatis
&
virtutis
illis
tribuatur
,
sed
eo
tantum
loco
habeantur
quo
litterae
&
voces
quae
rerum
absentium
quas
diligimus
&
veneramur
gratam
memoriam
suggerant
.
All
which
long
sentence
as
being
much
disagreeable
to
Sir
Humfreys
Precisian
spirit
he
made
shifte
to
passe
ouer
in
lurchers
sylence
.
And
in
deed
in
my
iudgement
the
foresayd
wordes
taken
as
they
stand
in
the
text
,
are
so
plaine
for
the
worship
of
images
in
that
sense
in
which
the
Roman
Church
houldes
it
lawfull
to
honore
them
,
that
I
can
not
easilie
preceiue
in
what
they
differ
from
the
tenor
of
the
decree
of
the
Tridentine
Councell
in
that
point
.
In
the
other
place
Sir
Humfrey
likewise
omits
the
latter
parte
of
Biels
sentence
as
it
is
cyted
by
Cassander
,
&
as
the
wordes
are
founde
in
Biel
himselfe
,
the
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
scips
are
these
,
quia
qualitercumque
consideretur
imago
est
res
quaedam
insensibilis
&
creatura
cui
adoratio
latrie
minime
exhibenda
.
Which
wordes
in
deed
are
those
by
which
both
Biel
&
Cassander
cheefelie
declare
what
they
denie
to
be
lawfull
in
the
due
worship
of
images
that
is
adoration
of
Latria
or
diuine
honor
:
And
yet
both
of
them
graunte
an
other
inferior
worship
or
honor
due
to
them
,
so
that
the
industrious
knight
to
saue
labor
falsified
these
two
authors
both
at
once
.
And
altho'
Biel
doth
reprehend
&
that
most
iustelie
,
the
blockish
error
of
some
ignorant
people
(
of
which
perhaps
some
there
may
be
some
times
in
the
vniuersall
Church
)
that
beleeue
some
diuine
virtue
or
sanctitie
to
reside
in
images
,
yea
&
in
one
more
then
an
other
,
&
the
like
sotish
conceites
,
yet
doth
it
not
followe
out
of
this
reprehension
of
Biel
that
he
denied
it
absolutelie
to
be
lawfull
to
worship
images
in
due
manner
,
as
our
captious
knight
would
haue
it
:
Nay
Biel
is
so
farre
from
this
that
in
the
verie
same
place
quoted
by
Sir
Humfrey
he
expresselie
defendes
adoration
of
the
images
of
Christ
euen
with
Latria
improperlie
or
per
accidens
,
which
is
as
much
as
anie
Roman
diuine
grauntes
to
anie
image
what
soeuer
.
To
which
we
may
adde
that
the
same
Biel
doth
in
expresse
termes
put
for
conclusion
of
his
59.
lection
these
wordes
.
Haec
de
imaginum
adoratione
ratione
representationis
.
This
of
the
adoration
of
images
in
respect
of
their
representation
.
By
which
wordes
it
is
cleare
that
is
author
this
grosselie
abused
in
that
he
is
cited
by
our
aduersarie
against
honor
of
images
,
he
being
so
plaine
a
defendant
of
the
same
that
he
doubts
not
to
vse
the
words
Latria
&
adoratio
.
Erasmus
&
Cassander
are
also
here
produced
by
our
aduersarie
against
the
vse
of
images
practised
in
the
Roman
Church
.
But
these
two
altho'
I
doubte
not
but
both
of
them
in
their
writings
incline
much
more
to
Catholike
Religion
then
they
doe
to
Protestancie
:
yet
absolutelie
they
are
but
neutrals
who
followed
more
their
owne
wandering
wits
then
anie
other
certaine
rule
of
faith
.
And
so
their
testimonies
are
not
admitted
by
vs
for
Orthodox
and
authenticall
.
And
therefore
Sir
Humfrey
committes
an
error
as
often
as
he
vseth
them
for
Romanists
.
Against
the
safetie
of
inuocation
of
Saints
he
produceth
S.
Augustin
saying
.
Tutius
&
iucundius
loquor
ad
meum
Iesum
.
But
this
sentence
he
cites
he
knowes
not
where
,
and
it
proues
he
knowes
not
what
,
nor
I
neither
.
S.
Augustin
truelie
affirmeth
that
he
speaketh
more
safelie
&
delighfully
to
Iesus
than
anie
other
,
&
so
doe
I
,
but
as
hee
doth
not
say
that
he
speaketh
not
to
his
Saints
also
,
no
more
doe
I.
Against
the
saftie
of
the
doctrine
of
merits
he
citeth
also
S.
Bernard
saying
that
,
dangerous
is
the
habitation
of
those
that
trust
in
their
owne
merits
.
But
here
the
knight
rides
beside
the
saddle
,
for
S.
Bernard
speakes
not
directlie
of
merits
but
of
confidence
in
merits
,
which
we
Romanists
graunt
to
be
vnsafe
by
reason
of
the
vncertaintie
of
them
in
this
or
that
particular
man
.
In
an
other
place
the
same
S.
Ber.
sayth
he
duelleth
in
the
woundes
of
our
Sauiour
with
more
saftie
:
which
saying
we
graunte
also
to
be
true
in
the
highest
degree
,
but
what
is
this
to
the
denyall
of
true
merits
grounded
in
the
mercie
&
grace
of
God
?
of
which
the
same
S.
Bernard
sayth
in
an
other
place
,
indeuore
,
or
procure
to
haue
merits
,
but
when
thou
'
hast
them
acknowledge
that
thou
hast
them
giuen
thee
.
merita
habere
cura
,
habitadata
noueris
.
And
the
trueth
is
that
by
reiecting
the
counsell
of
holie
S.
Bernard
in
this
particular
,
the
reformers
commit
a
most
pernicious
errour
in
regarde
that
by
houlding
all
merit
of
man
with
God
impossible
,
they
come
to
neglect
the
exercise
of
virtue
&
those
good
workes
in
which
both
merit
doth
consiste
,
&
without
which
the
Kingdome
of
Heauen
is
not
obtained
,
which
doctrine
howe
domageable
it
is
to
the
Saluation
of
soules
let
the
indifferent
reader
consider
.
Sir
Humfrey
cytes
also
frayer
walden
whome
he
most
falselie
affirmeth
to
agree
with
the
Protestants
in
the
doctrine
of
merits
.
For
as
appeareth
by
those
same
wordes
which
he
citeth
here
,
he
doth
not
denie
all
merit
,
as
they
doe
,
but
at
the
most
such
a
kynde
of
merit
in
particularie
:
that
is
,
that
no
man
simpliciter
,
simplie
meriteth
the
Kingdome
of
Heauen
,
which
merit
yet
he
doth
not
absolutelie
denie
,
but
onelie
sayth
that
no
man
can
merit
it
but
by
the
grace
of
God
or
will
of
the
giuer
,
which
are
his
owne
expresse
wordes
as
they
are
rehearse
by
our
aduersarie
,
and
in
a
sounde
sense
doe
not
differ
a
iot
from
the
doctrine
of
other
diuines
.
In
fine
he
doth
with
the
rest
of
the
Catholike
diuines
expresselie
teach
that
the
good
workes
of
the
iust
performed
by
the
grace
of
God
are
absolutelie
meritorious
of
the
Kingdome
of
Heauen
,
yet
he
is
opinion
that
the
words
ex
condigno
&
congruo
,
are
not
to
be
vsed
;
in
which
he
differeth
in
deed
from
the
opinion
of
most
diuines
,
but
not
from
the
Roman
faith
which
standes
not
vpon
those
termes
,
but
onelie
vpon
true
merit
,
as
may
be
seene
in
the
Councell
of
Trent
.
ses
.
6.
Can.
penult.
p.
48.
Which
Councell
vseth
not
those
tearmes
,
but
onelie
the
wordes
vere
mereri
,
that
is
to
merit
truelie
.
And
consequentlie
fryer
walden
agrees
with
the
Councel
of
Trent
but
not
with
Sir
Humfrey
and
his
precise
brothers
who
flie
the
verie
name
of
merit
,
as
deuils
flie
the
Crosse
.
And
to
descend
,
to
a
more
particular
discussion
of
fryer
waldos
meaning
touching
the
doctrine
of
merits
of
which
the
knight
subtillie
contendes
to
make
him
a
flat
denyer
.
I
say
in
primis
,
waldo
in
the
place
cyted
by
Sir
Humfrey
disputes
against
Wiclef
,
who
thought
such
confidence
in
proper
merits
that
he
seemed
to
exclude
the
merits
of
Christ
,
&
his
saints
.
And
therefore
speaking
of
his
peruerse
tenet
he
sayth
thus
.
Maledicta
ergo
doctrina
Wiclef
quae
potius
confidere
iubet
in
merito
,
&
hoc
proprio
,
vt
Christi
,
&
Sanctorum
videatur
excludere
,
quam
in
oratione
humili
pro
Christi
gratia
.
That
is
:
Maledicted
or
cursed
be
the
doctrine
of
Wiclef
which
rather
commaundes
to
confide
in
merit
,
&
that
proper
,
so
that
it
may
seeme
to
exclude
the
merits
of
Christ
,
&
his
Saints
:
then
in
humble
prayer
for
the
grace
of
Christ
:
Now
this
Kynde
of
confidence
in
merits
,
as
our
aduersaries
themselues
can
witnesse
if
they
please
,
is
not
anie
parte
of
the
Roman
doctrine
,
but
rather
we
Romanists
concurre
with
fryer
waldo
in
his
approued
cursse
.
Yea
&
we
are
so
remote
&
auerted
from
the
doctrine
of
Wiclef
in
this
point
,
&
from
teaching
such
confidence
euen
in
true
&
approued
merits
,
that
we
cantelously
aduise
the
members
of
our
Church
as
the
safer
way
not
to
relie
vpon
them
but
vpon
the
mercie
of
God
as
in
an
other
place
I
haue
more
largelie
declared
.
More
hauing
most
attentiuelie
read
his
seueral
treatises
vpon
that
subiect
,
I
plainelie
perceiue
that
religious
,
&
zealous
defender
of
the
Roman
doctrine
against
Wiclef
,
did
onelie
reiect
such
merits
as
either
excludes
,
or
at
a
the
least
preferres
not
the
grace
of
God
before
them
,
or
admits
not
grace
as
the
foundation
of
merits
.
For
touching
merits
founded
,
&
performed
by
the
concourse
of
Gods
grace
,
fryer
waldo
absolutelie
grauntes
both
in
this
same
chapter
cited
by
our
aduersarie
,
where
he
mentiones
both
the
merits
of
Chtist
&
his
saints
&
particularlie
of
Sainct
Paule
in
these
wordes
.
Whence
it
is
that
neyther
the
Apostle
did
applie
anie
thing
to
his
owne
merits
but
by
premitting
or
preferring
the
benefits
of
God
,
according
to
the
psalmist
saying
.
Because
he
would
so
haue
me
.
As
also
more
clearelie
in
his
tenth
Title
&
98.
chapter
where
he
most
professedlie
defendes
against
Wiclef
,
the
verie
participation
of
merits
especiallie
among
religious
persons
.
Which
doctrine
of
participation
of
merits
necessarilie
supposes
a
graunt
of
merits
themselues
,
as
common
sense
doth
easilie
apprehend
.
Not
to
let
passe
,
that
some
of
the
authours
owne
wordes
in
that
same
place
,
euidentlie
conuince
the
same
to
be
true
:
For
that
thus
he
questiones
his
aduersarie
.
cur
merita
non
ijs
partimur
quos
reddimus
bene
meritos
nostris
meritis
?
Why
doe
not
we
parte
merits
with
them
whome
we
make
well
merited
by
our
merits
?
By
which
wordes
waldensis
appeares
to
be
so
cleare
from
denial
of
merits
maintained
by
the
Roman
Church
,
that
he
rather
heapeth
merits
vpon
merits
in
defense
of
the
same
.
And
in
the
8.
chapter
of
his
first
Title
he
speakes
most
expresselie
euen
of
merit
of
eternall
life
saying
.
Sed
noueriut
vitam
aeternam
dari
nobis
pro
meritis
si
cum
meritis
ipsis
numeremus
&
gratiam
sine
qua
nec
ipsa
sunt
merita
,
quia
nec
Dei
dona
.
But
let
them
knowe
(
sayth
walden
)
that
eternal
life
is
giuen
vs
for
merits
,
if
with
merits
we
number
grace
,
without
which
neyther
are
they
merits
,
because
they
are
not
the
giftes
of
God
.
And
by
this
it
further
appeares
most
manifestly
that
those
wordes
of
waldensis
alledged
by
Sir
Humfrey
&
with
which
he
makes
his
florish
,
to
wit
.
I
repute
him
the
sounder
diuine
,
&
more
consonant
to
sacred
scriptures
who
simply
denyes
such
merit
:
in
reallitie
ar
not
for
his
purpose
,
in
regarde
that
ther
is
not
in
them
anie
denyal
of
that
merit
which
the
Roman
Church
defines
&
appooues
:
no
not
the
merit
of
eternal
life
:
but
the
author
of
them
,
onelie
reiects
from
the
desert
of
eternal
life
tale
meritum
,
that
is
merit
as
it
is
signified
by
those
tearmes
de
condigno
,
And
,
de
congruo
,
vsed
among
diuines
both
in
his
time
,
&
at
this
present
:
from
the
vse
of
which
according
to
his
priuate
dictamen
,
it
were
more
conformable
both
to
diuinitie
,
&
the
scripture
to
refraine
,
to
the
end
(
as
he
after
addes
)
they
might
by
the
auoyding
of
those
termes
,
be
founde
both
to
accorde
better
with
the
former
saints
(
he
meanes
the
ancient
Fathers
of
the
Church
)
&
with
the
phrase
of
the
Apostle
saying
:
sufficientia
nostra
ex
Deo
est
:
our
sufficiencie
is
of
God
.
As
also
for
that
in
respect
of
the
grace
of
God
,
they
might
be
founde
more
disagreable
(
as
in
their
doctrine
so
in
their
manner
of
speech
)
from
the
Pelagians
,
&
wiclesists
who
(
as
the
same
walden
saith
)
either
conceile
or
denie
the
grace
of
God
,
&
wholely
confide
in
the
merits
of
men
:
But
now
I
come
to
a
conclusion
,
where
yet
the
reader
if
he
please
may
further
take
notice
of
some
other
more
triuiall
abuse
offered
to
this
same
famous
diuine
by
the
sliperie
knight
by
leauing
out
the
aduerbe
igitur
in
his
translation
of
the
Latin
in
to
English
,
which
in
reason
he
ought
not
to
haue
omitted
in
regarde
it
necessarilie
implyes
a
relation
or
reference
to
the
authors
former
discourse
in
which
he
argues
against
merit
without
mention
of
grace
,
&
of
which
he
speakes
in
his
subsequent
wordes
,
tale
meritum
&c.
alledged
by
Sir
Humfrey
in
a
contrarie
sense
to
his
meaning
.
Besides
this
,
the
same
Sir
Humfrey
hath
not
a
little
transposed
some
of
waldens
wordes
in
his
recital
of
them
in
English
.
Connecting
to
these
:
or
will
of
the
giuer
:
those
,
as
all
the
former
sants
,
(
vntill
the
late
schoolemen
)
&
the
vniuersal
Church
hath
written
.
Which
neuerthelesse
,
he
ought
to
haue
set
immediatelie
after
those
other
which
followe
in
the
authors
text
:
to
wit
:
inuenirentur
esse
discordes
:
they
might
be
founde
disagreable
.
But
because
in
deed
I
doe
not
perceiue
it
could
much
importe
our
aduersarie
to
proceed
in
this
manner
;
therefore
I
charitablie
persuade
my self
it
was
not
done
of
malice
,
but
rather
of
ill
custome
.
Lastelie
Sir
Humfrey
produceth
Bellarmin
for
the
safety
of
his
way
in
this
same
point
.
But
he
that
should
haue
read
his
fift
booke
of
Iustification
,
would
iudge
that
man
fitter
for
Bedlam
or
Bridwell
then
for
the
schoole
of
diuinie
,
that
would
offer
to
cite
Bellarmin
against
the
doctrine
of
merits
.
The
wordes
&
meaning
of
him
I
haue
declared
in
an
other
place
&
so
hould
it
in
diuers
respects
superfluous
to
repeate
them
.
He
cites
also
S.
Austin
out
of
chemnitius
as
it
seemes
,
as
saying
(
I
knowe
not
where
for
he
quoteth
not
the
place
)
that
he
speakes
more
safelie
to
Iesus
,
tutius
&
iucundius
loquor
ad
meum
Iesum
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
purpose
of
denying
inuocation
of
Saints
.
For
besides
that
this
comes
onelie
out
of
a
iuglers
bugget
&
so
may
iustelie
be
supected
for
false
wares
,
yet
admit
S.
Austin
sayth
so
,
what
Romanist
is
there
who
doth
not
say
the
same
yea
&
practise
the
same
daylie
in
their
prayers
▪
While
they
acknowledge
with
all
submission
&
humilitie
that
all
their
saftetie
&
conforte
of
conscience
proceedes
from
Iesus
as
the
fountaine
of
their
Saluation
,
as
the
conclusion
of
all
or
most
Catholike
prayers
demonstrate
:
Yet
not
so
but
that
they
may
crye
also
vnto
his
freindes
&
seruants
as
being
more
neare
allyed
vnto
him
both
in
place
,
fauour
,
&
merits
then
we
our selues
,
that
they
interced
&
mediate
for
vs
for
the
obtaining
of
that
which
wee
our selues
are
not
worthy
either
to
obtaine
or
craue
at
his
hands
.
Which
kinde
of
inuocation
of
Saints
,
S.
Austin
himselfe
doth
approue
in
diuers
places
as
tract.
84.
in
Io.
Ser.
de
verb.
Apost.
&
de
cura
pro
mart
.
cap.
4.
And
so
these
being
all
the
authors
which
Sir
Humfrey
hath
produced
in
this
section
,
I
will
conclude
the
censure
of
it
in
this
manner
.
That
whereas
he
promised
in
the
begining
to
shewe
the
greater
saftie
of
the
Protestant
faith
then
of
the
Roman
by
the
confession
of
the
Romanists
themselues
,
he
hath
shewed
no
saftie
at
all
,
but
onelie
trifled
in
the
wordes
&
meaning
of
his
aduersaries
doctrine
,
&
that
onely
in
some
fewe
negatiue
articles
of
his
faith
omitting
all
the
rest
,
&
so
he
hath
performed
iust
nothing
which
may
serue
for
the
demonstration
of
anie
way
at
all
,
&
much
lesse
of
a
safe
&
perfect
way
,
but
onelie
hath
brought
him selfe
&
his
reader
further
into
the
laberinth
of
his
wandering
wits
.
THE
XI
.
PERIOD
.
IN
his
12.
section
Sir
Humfrey
tells
his
reader
that
the
Church
of
Rome
doth
seeke
to
elude
the
recordes
,
&
reall
proofes
in
the
Fathers
,
&
other
learned
authours
,
touching
the
cheefe
points
in
controuersie
betwixt
vs
.
This
accusation
no
doubt
maketh
a
foule
noise
in
a
pulpit
,
but
let
vs
see
how
the
knight
will
be
able
to
iustifie
it
.
For
his
first
witnesse
he
produceth
S.
Chrysostome
Hom
49.
operis
imperf
.
where
it
is
sayd
that
,
the
Church
is
knowne
onelie
by
the
scriptures
.
But
first
the
verie
title
of
the
treatise
showeth
this
testimonie
to
be
of
smale
authoritie
as
being
opus
imperfectum
an
vnperfect
worke
,
&
so
it
ought
not
in
reason
to
be
admitted
for
a
sufficient
proofe
:
especiallie
considering
that
Sir
Humfrey
alledgeth
no
other
witnesse
;
&
yet
on
the
contrarie
wee
knowe
that
our
Sauiour
sayd
.
In
ore
duorum
,
aut
trium
testium
stet
omne
verbum
,
in
the
mouth
of
two
or
three
witnesses
euerie
worde
may
stand
.
And
so
suppose
it
were
true
that
S.
Chrysostome
sayd
iust
that
which
Sir
Humfrey
would
haue
him
,
yet
is
not
one
testimony
enuffe
to
conuince
an
aduersary
,
thus
much
I
say
for
as
much
as
concerneth
the
point
of
controuersie
it selfe
of
the
all
sufficiencie
of
scripture
.
But
because
the
knight
may
say
this
is
not
that
which
he
intendeth
directlie
in
this
place
but
onelie
to
conuince
that
Bellarmin
hath
eluded
the
foresayd
testimonie
,
therefore
I
answere
secondlie
that
Sir
Humfrey
needed
not
to
haue
gone
to
Bellarmin's
Chronologie
for
the
censure
of
the
foresaid
worke
,
for
he
might
haue
founde
it
more
plainelie
censured
before
in
his
controuersies
,
as
appeareth
lib.
4.
de
verbo
Dei
non
scripto
,
the
11.
chapter
.
Where
the
Cardinall
hath
these
wordes
.
But
this
testimonie
is
not
of
Chrysostome
but
of
the
author
of
the
imperfect
,
who
was
either
an
Arian
or
certainlie
his
booke
was
corrupted
by
the
Arians
in
manie
places
:
Thus
Bellarmin
.
Shewing
the
corruptions
by
two
seuerall
instances
taken
out
of
the
worke
it selfe
,
where
he
speaketh
against
the
Homousians
that
is
against
the
Christians
of
the
Catholike
Church
to
which
he
giueth
that
name
because
they
defended
&
beleeued
the
consubstantialitie
of
the
eternall
sonne
with
his
Father
,
&
yet
it
s
well
knowne
that
sainct
Chrysostome
neuer
eyther
writ
or
spoake
against
the
Homousians
as
being
one
of
them
himselfe
&
a
professed
enimie
to
their
aduersaries
the
Arians
.
And
hence
it
is
plaine
that
Bellarmin
had
reason
to
censure
that
worke
&
not
to
acknowledge
it
for
S.
Chrysostomes
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
would
haue
it
,
except
he
would
haue
condemned
that
glorious
Doctour
of
the
Church
for
an
Arian
heretike
,
as
the
reformed
brothers
must
of
necessarie
consequence
doe
if
they
will
haue
him
to
be
the
authour
of
that
vnperfect
treatise
.
Neyther
did
yet
Bellarmin
taxe
it
for
that
sentence
which
the
knight
alledgeth
out
of
it
as
hee
craftilie
&
falselie
insinuates
,
but
for
other
erroneous
doctrine
which
it
containeth
,
which
is
no
more
contrarie
to
anie
article
of
the
Roman
faith
,
if
it
be
trulie
vnderstood
:
then
it
is
to
the
faith
of
the
reformers
,
except
perhaps
they
be
nearer
in
some
points
of
their
doctrine
to
the
Arians
then
the
Romanists
bee
,
whoe
quite
deteste
&
abhorre
the
same
.
Which
I
leaue
to
their
owne
consciences
to
determin
.
For
altho'
the
Romanists
denie
that
the
sole
scripture
&
pure
text
of
the
bible
is
sufficient
to
determin
all
controuersies
&
doubts
in
doctrine
or
manners
,
yet
they
doe
not
denie
but
that
the
sole
scripture
doth
sufficientlie
declare
the
most
&
greatest
parte
of
the
doctrine
necessarie
to
saluation
,
&
particularlie
they
graunt
that
the
true
Church
may
be
sufficientlie
knowne
by
onelie
scripture
truelie
expounded
,
which
is
the
verie
same
that
the
authour
of
the
imperfect
affirmeth
in
the
foresayd
wordes
.
Neyther
is
it
all
one
to
affirme
that
the
Church
is
knowne
onelie
by
scriptures
&
to
affirme
that
the
scripture
onelie
hath
all
sufficiencie
as
Sir
Humfrey
doth
falselie
suppose
when
he
vseth
the
first
proposition
taken
out
of
the
author
of
the
Imperfect
as
a
medium
to
proue
the
second
which
is
his
owne
position
,
because
to
know
the
Church
onelie
is
not
all
the
doctrine
which
the
scripture
containeth
as
necessarie
to
saluation
,
but
onelie
a
parte
of
the
same
,
&
so
it
is
cleare
that
how
true
soeuer
it
be
that
the
church
is
knowne
by
scripture
onelie
,
yet
can
it
not
be
thence
inferred
that
all
the
doctrine
of
the
Church
necessarie
to
saluation
is
sufficientlie
knowne
by
onelie
scripture
except
out
of
the
pregnance
of
his
wit
&
extrauagant
skill
in
logique
,
the
knight
can
inferre
an
vniuersall
proposition
out
of
a
particular
,
which
I
know
he
can
no
more
performe
then
he
can
extract
by
arte
two
oysters
out
of
one
apple
.
And
thus
we
see
that
Sir
Humfrey
hath
not
proued
by
the
exception
of
Bellarmin
against
the
foresaid
treatise
,
that
either
the
Roman
Church
or
Romanists
haue
eluded
their
recordes
,
or
reall
proofes
of
Fathers
touching
the
question
of
all
sufficiencie
of
scripture
,
for
that
the
sentence
thence
produced
proueth
no
such
thing
.
And
consequentlie
there
was
no
necessitie
that
Bellarmin
should
indeuour
to
infringe
the
authoritie
of
the
whole
worke
for
such
a
testimonie
drawne
out
of
it
as
is
not
contrarie
to
the
Roman
faith
,
neither
can
it
with
anie
coulour
be
imagined
that
the
Cardinall
would
euer
haue
layde
his
censure
vpon
the
same
if
it
had
not
ben
faultie
in
greater
matters
.
Secondlie
Sir
Humfrey
produceth
saint
Augustin
touching
the
deniall
of
honour
of
Saints
,
where
he
sayth
that
manie
are
tormented
with
the
diuell
who
are
worshipped
by
men
on
earth
.
And
whereas
Bellarmins
answere
,
according
to
Sir
Humfreys
relation
,
is
that
peraduenture
it
is
none
of
Augustins
that
sentence
,
the
honest
knight
as
if
Bellarmin
were
all
the
Romanists
that
euer
writ
or
spoake
,
maketh
a
generall
interrogatorie
saying
what
say
the
Romanists
to
this
?
As
if
that
which
one
onelie
priuate
man
speaketh
in
a
priuate
matter
were
to
be
accounted
the
voyce
of
all
men
of
his
profession
.
And
yet
Bellarmin
doth
not
onelie
adde
more
in
his
ansere
yea
&
much
more
to
the
purpose
,
which
not
withstanding
our
braue
Sir
Sycophant
very
slylie
omittes
viz.
that
he
could
not
finde
those
wordes
in
S.
Augustin
,
but
also
addeth
three
other
principall
anseres
to
the
same
obiection
.
And
so
it
appeareth
that
insteed
of
proofe
that
Bellarmin
eludeth
the
recordes
of
S.
Augustin
,
the
elusorie
knight
eludes
both
Bellarmin
&
his
reader
egregiouslie
by
deceitfullie
omitting
that
which
both
iustified
the
Cardinalls
proceeding
,
&
also
declared
the
true
meaning
of
the
place
cited
in
sainct
Augustins
name
.
Thirdly
,
he
taxeth
Bellarmin
&
stapleton
for
saying
that
S.
Augustin
was
deceiued
,
or
committed
a
humane
errour
in
his
interpretation
of
those
wordes
super
hanc
Petram
,
caused
by
the
diuersitie
of
the
Hebrewe
,
Grek
&
Latin
tongue
which
either
he
was
ignorant
of
or
marked
not
.
But
I
ansere
first
that
what
soeuer
error
S.
Augustin
might
commit
in
this
matter
,
certaine
it
is
that
it
was
onelie
aboute
the
interpretation
of
those
wordes
Math.
16.
thou
art
Peter
,
and
vpon
this
rocke
,
will
I
build
my
Church
For
touching
Sainct
Peters
supreme
authoritie
in
it selfe
(
which
is
that
our
irreligious
aduersarie
intendes
cheefelie
to
diminish
in
this
occasion
)
it
is
most
apparent
that
S.
Augustin
stronglie
maintaines
it
in
his
second
of
Baptisme
cap.
1.
saying
.
Quis
nesciat
illum
Apostolatus
Petri
principatum
,
cuilibet
Episcopatui
esse
praeferendum
?
That
is
who
can
be
ignorant
that
Principalitie
or
soueraintie
of
Peters
Apostolate
is
to
be
preferred
before
anie
Episcopate
or
Bishoprike
?
And
in
his
15.
sermon
of
the
saints
,
he
speakes
yet
more
plaine
to
this
purpose
,
affirming
that
our
sauiour
did
nominate
S.
Peter
for
the
foundation
of
the
Church
,
&
ideo
digne
fundamentum
hoc
Ecclesia
colit
,
supra
quod
Ecclesiastici
officij
altitudo
consurgit
.
And
therefore
(
saith
S.
Augustin
)
the
Church
deseruedlie
honoreth
this
foundation
vpon
which
the
altitude
of
the
Ecclesiastici
structure
ariseth
.
And
by
this
S.
Augustins
faith
of
S.
Peters
soueranitie
in
the
gouerment
of
the
Church
most
clearilie
appeares
,
so
that
no
other
peculiar
opinion
of
his
concerning
the
sense
of
those
wordes
super
hanc
Petram
,
could
possible
preiudicate
his
owne
constant
doctrine
in
the
substance
of
this
matter
in
it selfe
,
as
neither
could
stapleton
or
anie
other
Catholike
diuine
by
their
taxation
of
him
.
And
yet
neither
did
S.
Augustin
in
deed
reproue
the
common
opinion
of
diuines
in
expounding
that
place
of
S.
Mathewe
of
the
person
of
S.
Peter
:
but
expresselie
remittes
the
choyse
of
the
one
or
the
other
to
the
iudgement
,
or
affection
of
the
reader
,
as
is
manifest
by
his
owne
wordes
vpon
this
same
subiect
in
his
retractions
concluding
his
discourse
aboute
the
two
seuerall
opinions
in
this
manner
.
And
besides
this
,
altho'
we
should
admitte
the
foresayd
wordes
of
the
Euangelist
may
diuerselie
be
expounded
either
of
our
Sauiour
or
of
sainct
Peter
,
or
both
:
neuerthelesse
the
Popes
supremacie
cannot
suffer
therby
anie
preiudice
,
as
being
sufficientlie
established
both
by
other
wordes
of
the
same
passage
,
&
by
other
places
of
scripture
,
particularlie
by
that
of
S.
Iohn
21.
pasce
oues
meas
&c.
Feede
my
sheepe
.
Which
wordes
are
so
forcible
for
the
proofe
of
saint
Peters
supreme
authoritie
ouer
all
Christs
flocke
that
they
alone
with
the
circumstances
of
the
text
,
were
sufficient
to
conuicte
anie
reasonable
persons
iudgement
.
Thirdlie
concerning
the
communion
of
the
Cup
he
reprehendeth
Bellarmin
for
saying
in
his
answere
to
the
wordes
of
S.
Ignatius
one
cup
is
distributed
to
all
,
that
in
the
latin
bookes
is
not
founde
distributed
to
all
,
but
for
all
.
But
first
I
say
that
why
should
Bellarmin
be
produced
for
an
eluder
of
the
Fathers
recordes
for
telling
the
trueth
?
or
for
reporting
that
which
he
did
see
with
his
eyes
,
&
perhaps
without
spectacles
.
And
if
it
be
founde
by
eye
witnesses
to
be
otherwise
in
the
Latin
copies
then
in
the
Greeke
as
truelie
it
is
,
as
also
it
is
founde
that
the
Greeke
copies
are
not
sound
in
diuers
other
particulars
in
which
they
are
discouered
not
to
agree
with
the
citations
of
S.
Athanasius
&
Theodoret
,
What
sinne
did
Bellarmin
commit
in
vttering
the
same
?
But
howsoeuer
it
bee
good
Sir
Humfrey
,
doth
Bellarmin
relie
onelie
vpon
that
anser
,
nay
doth
he
not
giue
two
other
more
cheefe
ansers
then
that
?
both
which
you
dissemble
.
And
yet
more
then
this
,
you
haue
shamefullie
corrupted
that
one
ansere
which
you
cite
.
For
Bellarmin
sayth
not
that
S.
Ignatius
hath
the
wordes
distributed
for
all
,
but
,
one
chalis
of
the
whole
Church
,
vnus
calix
totius
Ecclesiae
,
meaning
that
there
is
one
common
chalice
because
it
is
offered
to
God
for
all
.
Nay
besides
this
,
Bellarmin
yet
further
addeth
,
that
the
Magdeburgers
read
those
wordes
of
S.
Ignatius
as
the
Romanists
doe
,
of
which
also
craftie
Sir
Humfrey
taketh
no
notice
:
so
that
the
reader
may
see
that
Bellarmin
is
here
diuerslie
abused
by
the
false
knight
,
&
yet
is
he
no
more
guiltie
of
eluding
of
the
Fathers
recordes
in
this
particular
then
the
foresayd
Lutherans
them selues
,
that
is
nothing
at
all
.
Fourthlie
he
taxeth
Sixtus
Senensis
for
saying
he
suspecteth
Origen
to
haue
ben
corrupted
by
the
heretikes
where
he
sayth
:
Thus
much
be
spoken
of
the
typicall
&
symbolicall
bodie
.
But
what
if
Senensis
vtter
his
opinion
in
that
manner
of
that
place
of
Origen
.
For
doth
not
eyther
he
,
or
at
the
least
,
a
number
of
other
diuines
giue
other
solid
ansers
to
the
same
as
may
be
seene
in
Bellarmin
&
others
.
As
that
it
is
not
certaine
that
workes
is
trulie
Origens
:
&
that
those
wordes
are
not
spoaken
of
the
Eucharist
,
but
of
the
bread
of
the
Cathecumes
which
we
commonlie
call
holie
bread
,
that
Origen
tearmes
the
bodie
of
Christ
Sybolical
&
Typical
because
it
is
present
in
the
Sacrament
as
a
type
or
signe
of
the
same
bodie
of
Christ
as
it
is
vnited
to
the
diuine
worde
in
the
mysterie
of
the
Incarnation
in
a
visible
manner
.
For
in
that
place
Origen
compares
the
bodie
of
Christ
as
it
is
in
the
Sacrament
with
the
same
as
it
is
in
it
proper
existence
.
And
so
in
like
manner
sanders
and
Baronius
for
diuers
reasons
hould
the
wordes
cited
by
Caluin
out
of
the
epistle
of
Epiphanius
to
Iohn
of
Hierusalem
touching
the
cutting
of
a
vayle
with
an
image
of
Christ
,
or
some
other
man
,
which
he
founde
at
the
entrance
of
a
Church
;
for
suppositious
as
being
added
after
the
whole
epistle
was
ended
.
And
yet
notobstanding
,
they
relie
not
intirelie
vpon
this
answere
,
but
yeald
others
also
which
,
supposing
the
foresayd
addition
were
truelie
the
wordes
of
that
holie
Father
,
yet
those
same
authors
abundantly
cleare
the
difficultie
&
declare
the
trueth
of
his
meaning
in
the
controuersie
of
honour
of
images
.
As
also
doth
Valentia
aboute
the
wordes
of
Theodoret
touching
transsubstantiation
,
who
sayth
that
the
substance
of
bread
&
wine
ceased
not
in
the
Sacrament
.
To
which
both
Valentia
&
other
diuines
,
(
notobstanding
they
kewe
by
that
which
passed
in
the
Councell
of
Ephesus
,
Theodoretus
authoritie
not
to
be
great
,
or
at
the
least
not
to
be
so
great
as
that
hee
alone
could
or
ought
to
preponderate
the
rest
of
the
Fathers
,
As
for
Bellarmin
whome
when
he
answereth
to
the
testimonie
of
S.
Cyprian
aboute
traditions
,
the
knight
seemeth
to
taxe
for
attributing
error
vnto
him
.
It
is
not
true
that
Bellar.
sayth
that
he
doth
not
maruell
that
S.
Cyprian
erred
in
reasoning
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
affirmeth
,
but
the
Cardinall
onlie
sayth
of
S.
Cyprian
,
ideo
non
mirum
si
more
errantium
ratiocinaretur
:
therefore
it
was
no
maruell
if
he
should
argue
after
the
manner
of
those
that
erre
,
because
he
writ
that
passage
to
which
Bellarmin
doth
ansere
in
the
place
cited
by
the
knight
,
when
he
defended
his
errour
aboute
rebaptization
against
S.
Augustin
.
But
withall
Bellarmin
addeth
that
S.
Cyprian
reiected
not
all
traditions
as
the
reformers
commonlie
doe
,
at
the
least
in
faith
&
manners
:
but
onelie
he
disalowed
that
tradition
in
particular
which
S.
Augustin
alledged
against
his
error
,
&
onelie
for
that
reason
because
he
conceiued
it
to
be
cotrarie
to
scriptures
,
which
yet
afterwardes
appeared
not
to
be
so
by
the
definition
of
the
Church
not
to
be
.
So
that
Bellarmin
is
both
here
falselie
accused
to
haue
absolutelie
affirmed
S.
Cyprian
to
haue
erred
in
reasoning
,
&
also
it
is
false
that
his
testimonie
touching
traditions
in
generall
is
by
him
eluded
,
which
is
that
Sir
Humfrey
ought
to
proue
if
he
speakes
according
to
his
owne
purpose
in
this
place
.
And
not
much
vnlike
to
this
is
the
same
Bellarmin
falselie
accused
by
the
knight
to
haue
affirmed
that
S.
Chrisostome
exceeded
the
trueth
when
he
sayd
.
It
is
better
not
to
be
present
at
the
sacrifice
then
to
be
present
,
&
not
comunicate
,
for
Bellarmin
sayd
not
that
sainct
Chrysostome
exceeded
the
truth
,
but
onelie
that
he
spoake
by
excesse
,
per
excessum
ita
esse
locutum
,
or
amplificandi
gratia
,
as
he
sayth
afterwardes
,
which
is
not
to
exceede
the
truth
but
to
vse
a
tropicall
speech
by
which
the
trueth
is
as
farre
extended
as
may
be
possible
within
her
boundes
but
no
further
.
And
more
ouer
Bellarmin
addeth
so
much
besides
to
this
ansere
to
Saint
Chrysostomes
wordes
,
Neyther
is
Sir
Hūfreys
complainte
against
Bellarmin
lesse
vniuste
,
where
he
sayth
,
yet
not
specifiing
aboute
what
matter
,
that
the
Cardinall
affirmes
Prudentius
to
playe
the
poet
,
for
why
should
anie
man
be
reprehended
for
attributing
to
a
Poet
that
which
is
proper
to
all
those
of
his
profession
that
is
to
speake
by
way
of
fiction
or
to
vse
poeticall
licence
.
The
trueth
is
I
can
finde
no
such
wordes
of
Bellarmin
as
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
,
but
suppose
he
speaketh
in
that
manner
of
Prudentius
,
yet
I
hould
it
to
be
no
greater
an
extenuation
of
his
authoritie
then
it
were
an
extenuation
of
Sir
Humfreys
honour
to
say
he
vseth
his
weapons
dexterouslie
or
plaieth
the
Champion
couragiouslie
.
But
yet
worse
then
this
doth
Sir
Humfrey
deale
with
Bellarmin
aboute
his
ansere
to
a
certaine
testimonie
of
Tertullian
.
For
whereas
he
onelie
sayth
that
Tertullians
authoritie
is
of
no
great
accounte
when
he
contradicts
other
Fathers
,
&
when
,
as
S.
Hierome
speaketh
,
he
was
no
man
of
the
Church
:
the
knight
to
saue
labor
,
but
not
to
saue
his
honestie
,
leaueth
out
that
speeche
of
S.
Hierome
&
putteth
the
whole
censure
of
Tertullian
vpon
Bellarmin
onelie
,
notobstanding
it
appeares
plainelie
that
the
greater
parte
of
it
is
taken
out
of
S.
Hierome
,
&
so
consequentlie
if
anie
proofe
or
recorde
were
eluded
in
Tertullian
,
Sir
Humfrey
might
more
iustelie
haue
accused
him
,
then
the
Cardinall
.
But
it
seemes
the
knight
proceeded
in
this
as
those
that
in
cases
of
reuenge
either
for
want
of
wit
,
or
valour
,
still
strike
their
next
fellowe
whether
he
be
in
faulte
or
no.
In
conclusion
Sir
Humfrey
had
no
reason
to
stand
vpon
Bellarmin's
ansere
to
those
two
authours
,
I
meane
Prudentius
&
Tertullian
;
for
that
neither
of
them
in
the
places
cited
speaketh
of
anie
point
of
doctrine
defined
by
the
Church
,
but
of
other
matters
in
which
as
it
was
free
for
them
to
speake
what
they
pleased
,
so
was
it
also
free
for
Bellarmin
to
ansere
what
he
pleased
,
especiallie
supposing
that
Tertullian
speakes
but
doubfullie
in
the
matter
for
which
he
is
taxed
by
the
Cardinall
,
that
is
in
the
manner
of
Christs
penetration
of
his
mothers
wombe
:
&
if
he
held
he
was
borne
according
to
the
course
of
nature
,
he
contradicteth
the
rest
of
the
Fathers
,
in
which
case
no
one
Father
hath
the
credit
of
an
absolute
testimonie
amongest
the
Romanists
,
neyther
can
he
or
anie
for
him
iustelie
complaine
if
he
be
disesteemed
in
such
a
case
.
Now
for
the
censure
which
Riuera
giueth
of
Origen
to
wit
that
he
was
full
of
errours
which
the
Church
hath
alwayes
detested
,
it
is
so
manifestlie
true
that
no
man
that
will
not
dogmatize
with
him
can
denie
the
same
.
And
the
truth
is
that
the
reformers
make
as
little
,
yea
&
much
lesse
account
either
of
him
or
anie
other
ancient
writers
,
then
the
Romanists
doe
,
as
the
world
knoweth
,
especially
when
they
finde
them
contrarie
to
their
positions
.
And
not
of
one
,
two
,
or
three
dissenting
from
the
rest
,
but
euen
of
the
torrent
of
their
consent
of
which
ouer
plaine
testimonie
is
extant
in
Luther
,
Caluin
Kemnitius
,
&
Chamier
.
As
for
S.
Hierome
whome
Canus
affirmeth
to
be
no
rule
of
faith
.
I
would
knowe
what
reformer
will
maintaine
the
contrarie
?
And
if
they
hould
him
to
be
a
rule
of
faith
then
a
dieu
their
all-sufficiencie
of
scripture
.
Besides
Canus
yealdes
a
pregnant
reason
why
S.
Hierome
was
not
to
be
followed
in
that
particular
of
which
he
speakes
in
that
place
,
to
wit
in
the
assignation
of
the
Canon
of
the
old
testament
,
because
sayth
Canus
he
followed
Ioseph
the
Iewe
,
but
S.
Austin
followed
the
Christians
in
that
point
of
doctrine
:
which
reason
of
Canus
Sir
Humfrey
ought
not
to
haue
omitted
if
he
had
dealt
sincerelie
.
As
impertinent
as
this
also
is
the
taxation
of
Bellarmins
answere
to
Iustin
,
Ireneus
,
Epiphanius
&
Oecumenius
who
seeme
to
haue
held
that
the
diuells
are
not
to
be
tormented
with
the
paines
of
hell
before
the
day
of
Iudgement
.
For
this
is
so
absurde
a
position
that
I
thinke
fewe
or
none
of
the
misreformed
Churches
defend
it
,
&
so
I
see
not
why
Bellarmin
can
iustelie
be
reprehended
for
saying
that
he
seeth
not
how
the
foresaid
authours
can
be
excused
from
errour
in
that
particular
,
for
that
the
Cardinall
onelie
condemneth
them
in
that
which
the
reformers
themselues
according
to
reason
&
sounde
doctrine
ought
to
condemne
also
,
&
that
in
no
question
of
Controuersie
betweene
vs
&
them
,
nor
which
can
iustelie
preiudice
the
foresayd
Fathers
authoritie
in
other
matters
,
especially
in
which
they
all
agree
.
Lastelie
sayth
Sir
Humfrey
,
we
produce
the
vniforme
consent
of
Fathers
against
the
immaculate
Conception
of
the
Blessed
Virgin
.
To
which
Salmeron
the
Iesuit
,
quoth
hee
,
ansereth
that
,
weake
is
the
place
which
is
drawne
from
authoritie
.
But
first
I
aske
of
Sir
Humfrey
what
he
&
his
consorts
haue
to
doe
with
the
immaculate
Conception
?
For
that
is
no
Controuersie
of
faith
betwixt
the
Romanists
&
them
,
it
is
a
question
among
some
Romanists
them selues
,
&
lawfull
for
either
side
to
make
the
best
vse
they
can
of
the
testimonies
of
Fathers
either
by
imbrasing
them
,
or
expounding
them
in
that
particular
point
,
as
they
finde
them
most
aduantageous
for
the
defence
of
their
seuerall
opinions
so
farre
as
the
Church
permits
them
,
&
that
without
any
disparishmēt
to
their
authority
in
regarde
their
wordes
are
not
so
plaine
,
but
that
they
may
seeme
to
admit
diuers
expositions
in
that
particular
.
And
as
for
Salmeron
he
neither
speaketh
of
the
Fathers
in
generall
when
all
or
most
of
them
consent
in
a
matter
of
fayth
,
nor
yet
when
they
plainelie
agree
in
anie
other
point
of
doctrine
,
but
onely
when
they
speake
doubtfullie
or
obscurelie
,
&
this
I
say
vpon
supposition
the
place
of
the
foresaid
authour
is
truelie
cited
,
which
,
in
regarde
I
haue
taken
the
knight
so
often
tardie
in
that
Kynde
of
proceeding
,
I
may
vnrashlie
suspected
.
And
the
truth
is
that
hauing
now
viewed
the
place
in
the
booke
which
is
in
the
51.
Disputation
of
Salmeron
vpon
the
5.
to
the
Romans
.
I
finde
that
he
speakes
not
of
the
vniforme
consent
of
Fathers
or
Doctors
,
but
onelie
of
a
certaine
great
number
of
them
to
which
he
opposeth
an
other
as
great
,
as
he
supposeth
,
yea
&
greater
:
&
therefore
he
addes
.
Quare
si
authorum
numero
decertare
velint
(
meaning
the
opposers
of
the
immaculate
conception
of
the
Virgen
)
procul
dubio
absorbebuntur
.
So
that
this
author
is
abused
iust
as
I
did
coniecture
before
I
sa
his
booke
.
And
altho'
I
can
not
much
commend
Salmeron
for
anie
great
ingeniousnesse
in
his
application
of
the
shepards
sentence
,
yet
sure
I
ame
that
if
he
applied
it
not
verie
aptelie
,
you
Sir
Humfrey
applie
it
much
worse
&
more
absurdelie
.
And
thus
hauing
nowe
examined
all
the
particulars
of
this
section
&
hauing
founde
nothing
which
proueth
the
authours
intent
,
I
will
end
my
period
yet
noting
by
the
way
how
vanelie
Sir
Humfrey
concludeth
his
discourse
affirming
his
reader
to
haue
heard
the
proofe
of
the
Romish
witnesses
in
the
behalfe
of
the
Protestant
doctrine
made
good
by
the
testimonies
of
the
Fathers
themselues
;
which
notobstanding
is
all
false
&
meere
delusion
,
for
that
I
haue
made
it
clearelie
appeare
that
neyther
anie
Romanist
by
him
cited
hath
graunted
that
anie
one
of
the
Fathers
doth
teach
anie
point
of
Protestant
doctrine
,
nor
yet
that
they
speake
in
those
places
here
cited
of
the
cheefe
points
of
doctrine
in
Controuersie
:
but
contrarilie
it
appeareth
that
they
speake
onelie
either
of
other
matters
which
little
concerne
the
Catholike
faith
,
or
at
the
least
they
speake
in
an
other
sense
then
the
reformers
pretend
:
yea
&
that
which
is
more
remarkable
,
not
with
vniforme
consent
,
but
rather
fewe
or
at
the
most
two
or
three
in
one
matter
,
in
which
manner
of
proceeding
,
what
argument
soeuer
may
be
deduced
from
them
,
it
is
no
more
trulie
to
be
iudged
&
called
the
testimonie
of
the
Fathers
absolutelie
,
then
that
may
be
called
absolutely
the
testimony
of
the
reformers
in
which
neuerthelesse
onelie
some
fewe
of
them
yeald
their
testimonies
,
&
yet
that
but
in
some
particulars
,
&
those
no
principall
points
of
faith
.
And
as
for
this
complaint
which
Sir
Humfrey
maketh
so
formallie
of
the
elusion
of
the
proofes
,
&
recordes
of
the
Fathers
,
as
also
touching
that
which
he
in
like
manner
frameth
against
the
Roman
Church
for
her
prohibition
,
or
censure
of
bookes
,
I
wonder
with
what
face
he
can
reprehend
that
which
he
knoweth
to
be
so
much
practized
in
his
owne
Church
,
in
which
there
cannot
the
least
pamphlet
,
or
smalest
volume
come
forth
which
if
it
doth
but
seeme
to
contradict
anie
parte
or
point
of
the
English
faith
,
or
anie
other
point
of
Puritanimse
,
is
not
presentlie
ceased
vpon
by
a
pack
of
Pursuiuants
,
&
put
to
the
tortor
of
the
Consistoriall
assemblie
there
to
receiue
sentence
of
condemnation
,
by
virtue
of
which
it
seldome
scapeth
the
flames
of
Vulcan
.
Of
which
in
parte
is
witnesse
Doctour
Mountagues
latelie
published
booke
,
which
by
reason
it
sauored
a
little
of
some
points
of
Romanisme
;
by
an
expresse
Apeale
euen
to
Cesar
himselfe
,
could
not
be
saued
from
the
seuere
censure
of
the
Puritan
sinagoge
.
And
particularlie
touching
the
authoritie
of
ancient
Fathers
,
if
it
were
a
faulte
in
the
Romanists
to
call
in
question
some
passages
,
or
sentences
of
some
of
their
writings
where
they
iustelie
suspect
them
to
haue
ben
corrupted
by
heretikes
:
Surelie
the
sectaries
of
these
tymes
are
much
deeper
plunged
in
this
nature
them
they
are
,
in
regarde
that
vnder
the
breight
colour
of
reformation
they
doe
not
onelie
vse
to
reprehend
particular
passages
,
but
reiect
whole
bookes
,
&
that
not
onelie
of
the
most
ancient
Fathers
as
appeareth
in
the
Hierarchie
of
sainct
Denis
,
but
also
whole
bookes
of
the
scriptures
themselues
,
as
is
manifest
in
the
bookes
of
the
Machabies
&
others
which
they
vtterlie
renounce
&
condemne
for
Apochripha
,
not
sparing
the
booke
of
wisdome
it selfe
,
such
cruell
patrons
they
are
of
ignorance
,
and
,
of
want
of
diuine
knowledge
.
Nay
&
now
of
late
they
are
be
come
so
precise
in
this
their
spirituall
tyranie
that
in
their
last
editions
as
I
ame
informed
,
they
haue
quite
banished
the
foresaid
bookes
of
Machabies
Tobie
,
Iudith
,
wisdome
Ecclesiasticus
out
of
their
bible
.
To
omit
other
bookes
of
lesse
moment
which
they
haue
eyther
mangled
or
left
quite
out
of
their
editions
,
as
in
the
Inquisitors
Index
may
be
seene
.
So
that
nowe
the
reader
may
plainelie
perceiue
that
Sir
Humfrey
&
his
pure
simmists
,
are
so
farre
from
excuse
for
their
importune
complaint
of
the
Romanists
in
this
particular
,
that
we
may
iustelie
compare
them
to
those
Phariseis
who
could
sooner
see
a
mote
in
their
fellowes
eye
then
a
beame
in
their
owne
.
And
so
here
I
leaue
them
all
to
be
censured
for
hypocrites
by
Christ
himselfe
,
&
passe
to
the
next
section
.
THE
XII
.
PERIOD
.
THIS
Period
shall
containe
an
other
accusation
of
the
knight
,
in
which
he
chargeth
the
Romanists
with
the
crime
of
razing
the
recordes
of
the
reformers
,
&
clipping
their
owne
authours
tongues
,
by
which
,
sayth
he
,
they
are
conuinced
of
an
ill
cause
,
&
conscience
.
But
how
falselie
the
Romanists
be
accused
by
Sir
Humfrey
it
plainelie
appeares
by
the
examen
of
witnesses
which
I
will
make
presentlie
:
and
in
the
meane
time
let
but
the
reader
reflect
vpon
that
which
hath
hitherto
ben
sayd
,
&
he
will
easilie
perceiue
that
Sir
Humfrey
himselfe
is
conuinced
not
onelie
of
a
bad
cause
,
&
an
ill
conscience
,
but
also
of
such
grosse
proceedings
as
is
not
able
either
to
the
partes
or
su
credit
of
a
Caualier
.
But
now
to
particulars
.
His
first
charge
is
layde
vpon
the
inquisitors
for
blotting
out
a
certaine
note
made
in
the
margen
of
the
Bible
of
Robertus
Stephanus
vpon
the
4.
chapter
of
the
deuter
.
That
God
prohibiteth
grauen
images
to
be
made
.
But
what
razing
of
recordes
is
this
?
Is
a
newe
note
made
by
some
one
,
moderne
,
vnknowne
authour
not
sutable
to
the
true
sense
of
the
text
,
&
in
such
an
edition
of
the
bible
as
cannot
be
of
anie
long
standing
,
to
be
accounted
one
of
your
recordes
?
And
if
it
be
yours
how
came
it
into
the
Bible
what
doth
it
there
?
hath
not
the
Inquitor
as
much
authoritie
to
put
it
out
as
some
obscure
brother
of
yours
had
to
put
it
in
?
the
true
meaning
of
the
scripture
neither
in
the
place
of
that
note
,
nor
anie
other
is
,
that
God
did
prohibit
absolutelie
all
grauen
images
(
as
one
of
the
greatest
diuines
you
haue
,
doth
ingenuouslie
confesse
)
His
second
charge
is
aboute
a
certaine
glosse
vpon
Gratian
,
which
glosse
affirmeth
(
according
to
Sir
Humfreyes
relation
)
that
the
Preist
cannot
say
significatiuelie
of
the
bread
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
without
telling
a
lye
.
This
glosse
(
saith
hee
)
is
condemned
by
the
inquisitor
to
be
blotted
out
.
It
is
true
the
Inquisitor
did
so
,
but
what
then
?
did
he
therefore
doe
it
wit
an
ill
conscience
,
I
denie
the
consequence
.
And
in
your
conscience
Sir
Humfrey
is
it
not
an
idle
glosse
indeed
?
Doe
not
your
ministers
themselues
when
they
deliuer
the
communion
call
it
the
bodie
&
blood
of
Christ
?
And
if
the
Preist
lyeth
when
he
sayth
so
not
of
the
bread
(
as
the
false
glosse
sayth
if
so
,
it
saith
)
but
of
that
which
is
contained
vnder
the
forme
of
bread
,
surelie
your
ministers
tell
a
farre
greater
lye
when
they
say
significatiuelie
of
the
bare
bread
,
that
it
is
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
truelie
&
reallie
,
as
Master
Caluin
affirmeth
.
Thirdlie
Sir
Humfrey
chargeth
the
Inquisitor
for
blotting
out
Cassanders
whole
tract
of
the
Communion
in
both
kynds
.
But
what
worse
conscience
sheweth
the
Inquisitor
in
this
fact
then
the
Inquisitors
of
the
reformed
Churches
doe
,
who
are
not
content
with
a
simple
doleatur
,
but
daylie
condemne
whole
Catholike
volumes
to
the
vnmercifull
Vulcan
.
And
as
for
the
recordes
which
you
take
out
of
Cassander
we
make
no
more
accounte
of
them
then
we
doe
of
those
which
you
take
out
of
Luther
or
Caluin
,
&
so
you
may
take
them
&
make
your selfe
merrie
.
Fourthlie
Caietans
opinion
that
the
wordes
,
this
is
my
bodie
,
doe
not
sufficientlie
proue
transubstantiation
,
is
no
recorde
for
you
,
as
you
falselie
suppose
,
for
he
doth
not
denie
transsubstantiation
as
you
doe
,
but
expresselie
defended
it
,
as
his
owne
wordes
declare
which
I
afterwardes
recitie
:
nay
he
doth
not
affirme
absolutelle
(
as
suarez
wordes
quoted
by
your selfe
in
your
owne
margent
expressely
declare
)
that
the
foresaid
wordes
doe
not
sufficientlie
proue
transsubstantiation
as
you
corruptedlie
relate
,
but
onelie
sayth
at
the
most
that
,
secluding
the
Churches
authoritie
,
they
doe
not
proue
it
:
which
,
not
as
contrarie
to
faith
,
but
as
a
singular
,
&
extrauagant
opinion
of
that
authour
,
Pope
Pius
did
(
if
perhaps
he
did
)
piouslie
blot
it
out
,
not
preciselie
because
it
fauoreth
the
reformers
(
as
in
trueth
it
doth
not
to
anie
purpose
)
but
because
it
sm'at
disfauored
the
truth
,
which
is
that
transsubstantiation
is
indeed
plainelie
enough
contayned
in
those
wordes
of
Christ
,
this
is
my
bodie
.
Howbeit
I
must
needs
aduertice
the
reader
that
I
neyther
finde
those
wordes
supposed
to
be
Caietans
,
blotted
in
anie
Index
that
I
haue
seene
,
nor
yet
can
I
finde
them
in
anie
edition
of
Caietan
in
the
place
cited
by
Suarez
,
that
is
vpon
the
75.
q.
art.
1.
But
onelie
these
.
Conuersio
non
habetur
explicite
in
Euangelio
,
&
these
.
Quod
Euangelium
non
explicauit
expresse
,
ab
Ecclesia
accepimus
.
Nay
more
then
this
I
finde
other
wordes
in
the
same
place
which
conuince
that
Caietan
held
transsubstantiation
to
be
sufficientlie
contained
in
those
wordes
this
is
my
bodie
,
for
so
he
argues
.
Sacramenta
nouae
legis
efficiunt
quod
significant
,
ac
per
hoc
verba
Christi
hoc
est
corpus
meum
quia
efficiunt
vtramque
nouitatem
scilicet
conuersionis
&
continentiae
(
vt
expresse
dicta
sacri
Concilij
authoritas
testatur
)
consequens
est
vt
cadem
Christi
verba
significent
vtramque
nouitatem
.
Wherefore
supposing
Caietan
said
not
that
the
wordes
:
this
is
my
bodie
:
conteine
not
sufficientlie
transsubstantiation
,
but
onelie
not
expresselie
:
I
cannot
conceiue
what
foundation
Suarez
might
haue
for
this
his
relation
,
except
peraduenture
Pius
quintus
founde
that
edition
alone
of
Caietan
to
haue
ben
corrupted
by
heretikes
,
&
therefore
caused
it
to
be
corrected
in
that
passage
:
as
indeed
an
other
place
of
the
same
Caietan
2.
2.
q.
122.
is
discouered
by
the
authors
of
the
prohibitiue
Index
to
haue
ben
in
that
same
fashion
fraudulentlie
depraued
,
as
the
same
Index
expresselie
testifies
in
these
wordes
quoted
in
the
margen
.
In
Thomae
Caietani
commentarijs
in
D.
Tho.
2.
2.
q.
122
art
4.
omnino
corrigantur
errores
qui
fraude
haereticorum
irrepserunt
,
vt
notatur
in
expurg
.
Index
lib.
prohib
p.
89.
Geneu
.
impres
.
The
Epistle
of
Walricus
is
suppositious
,
which
is
paoued
to
be
so
because
it
is
superscribed
to
Pope
Nicolas
to
whom
according
to
the
computation
of
times
,
the
first
Pope
Nicolas
was
before
Walricus
was
borne
,
and
the
second
Nicolas
was
not
borne
till
after
he
was
dead
.
Neither
is
it
any
way
probable
that
such
a
holie
Bishop
as
Walricus
was
,
should
commend
marriage
in
other
Preists
,
who
liued
and
dyed
in
vnmarried
chastity
himselfe
,
and
so
the
foresayd
Epistle
being
a
false
record
,
as
containing
an
improbable
yea
a
morally
impossible
relation
,
it
was
iustely
condemned
with
a
deleatur
.
To
omit
that
if
this
Epistle
wer
authenticall
,
the
reformers
would
gaine
nothing
by
the
bargen
for
that
it
teacheth
expressely
that
the
Roman
Bishop
is
head
of
the
Church
,
and
that
Preists
at
the
least
after
ordination
cannot
lawfully
marrie
.
Sixtly
it
is
false
that
Bertram's
whole
booke
is
condemned
,
as
may
appeare
by
the
iudgement
of
the
Vniuersitie
of
Doway
approued
by
the
Censurers
of
bookes
inserted
in
the
Index
of
Quiroya
published
by
Ioannes
Pappus
a
reformed
deformed
diuine
with
certaine
odious
prefaces
of
his
owne
coyning
,
&
printed
at
Argentin
1609.
In
the
17.
page
of
which
Index
it
is
manifest
that
the
whole
booke
was
not
commaunded
to
be
blotted
out
,
but
onely
some
fewe
things
to
be
corrected
,
or
altered
in
the
reading
,
or
to
be
expounded
benigneously
.
And
as
for
the
doctrine
of
transsubstantiation
,
the
foresaid
Doctours
of
Doway
expressely
declare
that
Bertram
often
times
in
the
first
parte
of
his
disputation
teaches
Catholike
transsubstantiation
plainely
enuffe
,
vsing
the
words
conuertere
,
mutare
,
commutare
,
permutare
transponere
creaturam
in
Christum
,
in
corpus
Christi
&c.
in
so
much
that
Illiricus
compelled
with
the
plainesse
of
those
wordes
,
confesseth
there
are
in
Bertram
semina
transsubstantiationis
,
seeds
of
transubstantiation
.
And
also
the
same
Dowacene
Doctors
conclude
that
those
difficult
places
which
are
founde
in
him
touching
the
reall
presence
,
which
cheefely
are
two
,
to
wit
that
he
seemeth
to
haue
ben
of
opinion
that
Christs
bodie
is
no
more
in
the
Eucharist
then
the
bodie
of
the
people
,
and
that
that
thing
which
is
celebrated
or
done
in
the
Church
cannot
be
called
God
;
are
either
to
be
vnderstood
of
the
externall
formes
of
bread
and
wine
:
or
els
that
those
sentences
be
inserted
by
heretiks
who
printed
that
booke
first
at
Colen
.
1532.
&
after
at
Basil.
1550.
&
1555.
so
that
this
is
no
recorde
of
the
reformers
,
except
it
be
vpon
supposition
of
their
owne
corruptions
or
false
glosses
added
vnto
it
;
but
rather
may
serue
for
a
pregnant
testimonie
against
them
,
and
consequently
he
that
should
haue
blotted
it
out
,
had
done
them
no
iniurie
but
a
verie
great
fauor
.
Seuenthlie
I
say
to
the
sentence
taken
out
of
the
booke
of
baptizme
vnder
the
name
of
Anselme
,
that
manie
passages
be
blotted
out
by
the
Censurers
of
bookes
,
by
reason
they
are
such
as
may
easilie
be
taken
in
an
erroneous
sense
,
&
so
scandalize
or
giue
occasion
of
errour
either
to
the
simple
,
or
malicious
reader
,
which
neuerthelesse
in
a
sounde
sense
containe
no
false
doctrine
,
&
so
might
be
lefte
vncorrected
if
it
were
not
for
the
corruption
&
malignitie
of
the
tyme
.
And
of
this
nature
be
the
wordes
of
the
booke
of
the
visitation
of
the
sicke
&
Baptisme
,
if
they
be
ritely
recited
by
Sir
Hum.
Doest
thou
beleeue
that
the
Lord
Iesus
Christ
dyed
for
our
saluation
,
&
that
there
is
no
meanes
to
be
saued
by
owne
merits
?
Which
sentence
in
a
true
meaning
is
no
recorde
of
the
reformers
,
&
in
a
false
meaning
,
it
is
better
blotted
out
than
lefte
in
.
And
such
diligence
argueth
no
ill
conscience
,
but
a
motherlie
care
of
the
Church
towardes
here
children
.
8.
We
haue
sayd
sufficient
alreadie
touching
the
credit
of
Cassander
,
whose
doctrine
the
Romanists
hould
for
false
recordes
either
in
parte
or
totalitie
.
And
he
maketh
such
preposterous
glosses
vpon
the
Ecclesiasticall
himnes
,
as
the
Index
noteth
in
one
place
,
that
all
his
whole
scholium
is
repugnant
to
the
same
like
a
commentarie
contrarie
to
the
text
.
Yet
to
giue
the
reader
a
taste
What
truelie
this
man
was
,
who
is
so
farre
in
Sir
Humfreys
bookes
:
I
say
that
altho'
we
hold
not
Cassander
for
a
Romanist
,
as
being
in
the
Index
of
prohibited
bookes
for
diuers
singular
positions
,
neuerthelesse
the
knight
cannot
iustelie
brag
of
him
in
regarde
it
is
manifest
by
his
workes
which
I
haue
seene
&
read
in
parte
,
that
he
expresselie
defendes
the
Roman
doctrine
in
most
points
of
Controuersie
betwixt
vs
&
the
Reformers
:
as
also
because
in
a
greater
parte
euen
of
the
same
places
which
Sir
Hum.
cites
in
his
fauour
,
he
is
not
a
little
abused
&
either
corrupted
or
detorted
by
him
contrarie
to
his
meaning
.
Howbeit
in
respect
he
professeth
the
parte
of
a
Pacifer
&
mediator
betwixt
vs
,
he
could
not
but
leane
some
thing
to
their
side
,
yet
is
it
so
little
that
I
perceiue
by
one
of
his
writings
that
he
had
smale
thankes
for
his
paines
from
some
of
the
faction
,
&
therefore
was
most
sharpelie
handled
by
them
accusing
him
of
dissimulation
,
imposture
,
interruption
of
the
course
of
the
Gospell
&
the
like
.
An
infortunate
man
who
by
his
great
labours
&
earnest
endeuours
to
content
both
parties
,
contended
neither
:
a
iuste
punishment
due
vnto
such
as
destitute
of
true
knowledge
in
diuinitie
(
which
he
himselfe
in
parte
confesseth
in
his
generall
Preface
)
presume
to
treat
of
those
sublime
subiects
sans
a
guide
.
The
Basilean
edition
of
Polidor
virgill
printed
in
the
yeare
1544.
compared
with
other
former
&
the
most
ancient
editions
is
founde
to
haue
ben
corrupted
by
the
sectaries
&
so
no
true
recordes
can
be
taken
out
of
it
for
Sir
Humfrey
&
his
confraternitie
.
And
such
is
that
passage
which
the
Inquisitours
commanded
to
be
blotted
out
,
which
is
this
.
All
most
all
ancient
Fathers
condemned
images
for
feare
of
idolatrie
.
This
sentence
as
false
&
foysted
into
the
foresayd
Basilian
edition
,
is
iustelie
cast
out
as
none
of
the
authours
doctrine
,
or
at
the
least
vehementlie
suspected
for
none
of
his
.
And
touching
the
doctrine
of
honour
of
images
it selfe
,
it
is
cleare
that
he
can
aforde
no
recorde
at
all
for
the
reformed
diuinitie
,
for
that
he
expresselie
relateth
the
vse
of
images
in
Churches
deduceing
it
historicallie
from
the
most
primatiue
tymes
.
Langius
or
Langus
is
of
no
authoritie
among
the
Romanists
&
so
he
yealdes
no
recordes
of
credit
.
And
at
the
best
he
is
but
a
pedanticall
Annotator
,
&
as
I
take
it
a
Lutheran
,
that
is
neither
of
Sir
Humfreys
religion
nor
of
ours
.
As
for
Ferus
certaine
it
is
that
some
of
his
editions
haue
ben
founde
to
be
mightilie
corrupted
particularlie
that
of
Mogunce
.
Which
the
knight
citeth
&
so
the
recordes
drawne
out
of
him
are
of
no
authoritie
.
But
suppose
Cephas
did
indeed
not
signifie
the
head
,
yet
what
great
recorde
I
praye
can
that
be
for
Sir
Humfreys
Church
?
And
so
whether
Cephas
signifie
the
head
or
the
feet
,
&
whether
ridiculum
est
be
in
,
or
out
of
the
bookes
,
it
auayles
him
nothing
but
some
smale
matter
to
quarell
aboute
:
yet
the
truth
is
that
the
most
authenticall
edition
of
Anwerpe
1585.
hath
the
same
wordes
which
Sir
Humfreyes
cites
out
of
the
Roman
print
:
in
such
sorte
as
one
may
rather
much
more
suspect
those
wordes
,
it
is
ridiculous
:
to
be
falselie
added
in
the
Moguntin
edition
then
detracted
in
the
others
.
Finallie
whether
the
wordes
of
the
Councell
of
Laodicea
be
that
wee
ought
not
to
leaue
the
Church
of
God
&
inuocate
Angells
,
as
Sir
Humfrey
will
haue
it
,
&
also
some
Catholike
copies
haue
:
or
whether
in
steed
of
the
worde
Angells
wee
reade
angles
or
corners
,
as
some
other
editions
haue
,
the
matter
is
not
great
so
the
decree
be
reight
vnderstood
,
that
is
so
that
the
sense
bee
this
:
we
ought
not
to
leaue
the
Church
of
God
&
inuocate
Angells
superstitiouslie
as
some
did
in
those
tymes
.
For
this
being
the
true
meaning
of
the
Councell
as
it
appeareth
by
the
subsequent
wordes
which
are
those
,
and
make
congregations
of
abominable
idolatrie
to
the
Angells
,
it
is
more
then
plaine
that
no
recorde
can
there
be
founde
for
the
doctrine
of
the
reformed
Churches
.
But
onelie
it
serues
Sir
Humfrey
to
make
a
plausible
florish
to
the
simple
reader
,
to
the
end
that
by
working
vpon
his
weaknesse
by
falselie
taxing
his
aduersaries
,
hee
may
make
his
owne
impostures
saleable
,
which
otherwise
would
putrifie
&
spoile
for
want
of
vtterance
.
Lastelie
for
proofe
of
his
accusation
,
Sir
Humfrey
after
all
this
sturre
he
hath
made
,
produceth
onelie
one
witnesse
,
&
that
a
false
one
:
and
altho'
for
the
greater
credit
of
his
cause
,
he
held
it
expedient
to
giue
him
the
decree
of
a
diuinitie
reader
&
professor
,
&
Deane
of
Louaine
,
yet
hauing
examined
the
matter
,
I
founde
by
better
information
then
Sir
Humfrey
can
haue
,
that
Boxhorne
before
his
reuolte
had
onelie
the
place
a
certaine
of
obscure
Deanrie
:
which
function
altho'
it
be
a
place
of
some
credit
,
yet
it
is
farre
inferiour
to
the
dignitie
either
of
a
Deane
of
a
Capitall
Church
,
or
of
a
publike
professour
of
diuinitie
in
the
vniuersitie
of
Louaine
,
both
in
learning
,
honour
,
&
profit
.
And
yet
this
man
as
I
receiued
by
authenticall
relation
of
the
Deane
of
S.
Gudula
Church
in
Brussels
,
&
others
:
after
some
extraordinary
familiarity
which
out
of
his
ouer
amorous
nature
he
vsed
to
a
domestike
maide
seruant
of
his
owne
,
&
out
of
an
vnsetlednesse
of
his
lubrik
mynde
,
began
at
first
to
defend
that
,
it
was
not
necessarie
for
the
Preist
to
prononce
the
wordes
of
consecration
orally
,
but
onelie
to
speake
them
mentallie
,
&
afterwardes
(
as
nemo
repente
fit
malus
)
Boxorno
once
a
pettie-master
.
by
degrees
falling
into
plaine
heresie
,
founde
oportunitie
to
passe
into
the
land
of
libertie
,
I
meane
into
Holand
,
with
bag
&
bagage
,
I
meane
with
his
Sacrilegious
spouse
&
the
sacred
spoiles
of
his
Church
.
Where
from
the
place
of
a
fugitiue
Pedant
,
he
is
preferred
to
the
dignitie
of
a
new
Euangelist
,
&
is
become
a
blostering
trumpeter
in
the
pulpits
of
the
misreformed
congregations
.
And
this
is
the
onely
man
which
Sir
Humfrey
could
bring
for
a
witnesse
against
the
practice
of
the
Roman
Church
in
her
manner
of
censuring
bookes
or
correcting
the
same
,
or
approuing
them
according
to
the
order
&
decree
of
the
Councell
of
Trent
,
which
collapsed
Deane
being
so
infamous
in
his
life
as
by
this
which
I
haue
specified
,
and
more
which
I
could
relate
,
doth
appeare
,
and
being
also
now
a
professed
enimy
and
Apostata
from
his
mother
Church
,
let
the
reader
iudge
whether
in
reason
his
testimony
ought
to
be
admitted
against
her
:
and
let
him
withall
be
pleased
to
consider
that
Sir
Humfrey
in
lue
of
conuincing
his
aduersaries
of
ill
conscience
,
he
hath
by
his
owne
bad
proceeding
in
this
section
conuinced
his
owne
to
be
the
worst
of
all
,
&
so
is
fallen
in
to
the
same
pit
he
prepared
for
his
enimies
incidit
in
foueam
quam
fecit
,
by
forgeing
of
false
recordes
,
&
hath
incurred
a
farre
deeper
dungeon
of
censure
then
hitherto
he
did
,
in
which
he
must
remaine
either
till
he
hath
payde
a
double
fine
,
or
put
in
suretie
for
the
amendment
of
his
manners
.
THE
XIII
.
PERIOD
.
IN
His
fourteeneth
section
Sir
Humfrey
indeuoreth
to
conuince
his
aduersaries
of
the
defence
of
a
desperate
cause
by
their
blasphemous
exceptions
,
as
he
calleth
them
,
against
the
scriptures
,
by
which
we
see
that
as
his
booke
increaseth
in
number
of
leaues
so
he
increaseth
in
multiplication
of
his
malicious
and
false
accusations
,
and
these
being
the
cardes
he
playeth
with
,
let
vs
examen
his
gaime
.
He
continueth
confidently
his
allegation
of
his
false
Deane
of
Louaine
for
a
witnesse
against
the
Romanists
,
whose
worde
notwithstanding
ought
not
either
in
reason
or
according
to
the
course
of
lawe
to
be
admitted
for
recorde
against
those
from
whose
religion
he
hath
reuolted
.
And
so
whereas
he
accuseth
the
Roman
Church
of
poyson
in
religion
&
tiranny
in
the
common
welth
,
it
is
to
be
taken
as
proceeding
from
a
poysonous
minde
,
which
being
once
corrupted
hateth
the
truth
as
much
as
an
ill
stomake
loathes
dainty
meates
.
As
for
the
scriptures
,
it
is
false
&
slaunderous
to
affirme
that
the
Romanists
refuse
to
be
tryed
by
them
so
they
be
taken
together
with
the
authoritie
of
the
Church
which
the
same
scriptures
commende
,
as
Saint
Augustin
speaketh
against
his
aduersaries
,
and
in
a
true
sense
without
which
as
one
of
the
auncient
Fathers
saith
,
verbum
Dei
male
intellectum
non
est
verbum
Dei
that
is
,
the
worde
of
God
ill
vnderstanded
is
not
the
word
of
God
.
And
of
the
censure
of
your
owne
abuses
I
graunt
you
may
with
shame
enough
to
your selues
be
eye
witnesses
,
but
if
you
meane
you
are
eye
witnesses
of
the
censure
of
the
true
scriptures
it
is
most
false
&
calumnious
that
either
they
,
or
the
authours
of
them
be
called
in
question
:
and
yet
more
false
&
slaunderous
it
is
that
Christ
and
his
Apostles
are
arraigned
&
condemned
at
the
Popes
assises
(
as
you
odiouslie
affirme
)
of
obscuritie
&
insufficiencie
in
their
Gospell
.
that
certaine
obscure
speeches
of
the
scripture
bring
a
most
dense
or
thicke
miste
vpon
them
.
And
that
they
are
deceiued
with
many
,
&
manifould
obscurities
&
ambiguities
that
rashly
reade
them
,
vnderstanding
one
thing
for
an
other
.
And
as
for
the
Gospell
of
Christ
&
his
Apostles
,
neither
the
Pope
nor
anie
other
Romanist
euer
condemned
it
of
anie
insufficiencie
or
defect
,
but
onelie
teach
with
the
same
scripture
itselfe
that
it
doth
not
containe
all
things
necessarie
so
explicitlie
that
they
suffice
for
the
instruction
of
the
whole
Church
according
to
all
states
of
people
&
in
all
particulars
without
traditions
,
as
appeareth
by
the
saying
of
sainct
Paule
Therefore
brethren
stand
&
houlde
the
traditions
which
you
haue
learned
whether
it
be
by
worde
,
or
by
our
epistle
.
Which
wordes
of
the
Apostle
neither
can
truelie
be
verified
nor
his
commaund
obeyed
,
except
we
graunt
that
he
deliuered
more
to
the
Church
of
the
Thessalonians
then
he
left
in
writing
.
Neither
doe
the
Pope
&
Romanists
anie
more
condemne
the
scriptures
of
insufficiencie
by
denying
that
they
containe
clearely
all
things
necessarie
,
or
by
affirming
that
diuine
&
Apostolicall
traditions
are
also
necessarilie
required
,
then
the
reformers
them selues
,
who
besides
scripture
professe
at
the
least
in
wordes
to
beleeue
the
Apostolicall
,
nycene
,
&
Athanasian
Creed
:
not
no
more
then
that
man
should
be
thought
to
condemne
the
common
lawes
of
insufficiencie
who
besides
them
iudgeth
it
also
necessarie
to
obserue
those
ancient
customes
which
the
lawes
themselues
commend
as
by
the
legislators
&
first
authours
of
the
same
deliuered
to
the
people
by
worde
of
mouth
.
And
so
to
conclude
,
touching
the
scriptures
thus
vnderstood
,
the
Romanists
are
so
farre
from
refusing
to
be
tryed
by
them
that
they
flye
vnto
them
with
sainct
Chrysostome
in
all
occasions
as
to
most
hight
montaines
in
which
they
finde
a
most
comodious
place
to
plant
their
ordinance
against
the
enimies
of
the
faith
,
&
particularlie
against
the
sectaries
of
this
our
present
age
,
as
is
most
euident
in
the
late
Councell
of
Trent
all
the
decrees
of
which
renouned
Synod
are
founded
vpon
those
heigh
hills
of
the
written
worde
of
God
according
to
the
true
sense
&
meaning
of
the
same
.
And
as
for
Causabon
&
Agrippa
whome
the
knight
citeth
,
he
&
they
may
goe
together
for
their
authoritie
viz.
in
lying
.
Agrippa
&
Causabon
are
alreadie
registred
in
the
Predicament
of
Nouelists
,
You
aske
vs
,
Sir
Humfrey
,
whether
the
worde
of
God
is
subiect
to
alteration
or
needeth
&
Index
expurgatorious
,
but
to
this
your
wise
demaunde
I
anser
,
that
the
worde
of
God
in
itselfe
is
wholelie
immutable
,
so
pure
that
it
can
need
no
purifying
,
yet
as
it
is
&
expressed
by
artificiall
caracters
for
the
vse
of
man
,
so
it
is
not
onelie
mutable
&
corruptible
,
but
also
de
facto
it
is
&
hath
ben
corrupted
,
witnesse
your
owne
Bibles
in
England
.
And
witnesse
that
renowned
King
Iames
your
owne
soueraine
&
best
defender
of
your
faith
,
who
was
so
ashamed
of
the
translations
which
he
founde
at
his
arriuall
to
the
English
Crowne
,
that
he
presently
sought
a
remedy
for
the
same
(
tho'
he
founde
it
not
,
as
appeareth
by
his
new
translation
which
yet
is
not
as
it
ought
to
be
)
publikelie
declaring
in
the
Conference
of
Hampton
Courte
,
Neither
ought
the
corruptions
founde
in
the
reformed
Bibles
to
be
called
peccadillos
or
smale
faultes
as
Sir
Humfrey
would
haue
them
to
the
end
they
may
be
the
more
easilie
winked
at
:
for
suppose
they
were
neuer
so
little
in
themselues
,
yet
are
they
to
be
esteemed
great
&
horrible
abuses
in
regarde
of
the
great
reuerence
which
ought
to
be
had
towardes
those
sacred
volumes
of
the
worde
of
God
,
it
being
treason
in
the
highest
degree
to
offer
to
falsifie
or
alter
them
anie
way
whatsoeuer
.
And
let
the
reader
be
iudge
whether
it
be
but
a
smale
faulte
to
translate
images
for
idols
,
as
the
English
bible
of
the
yeare
1562.
hath
in
the
text
:
or
as
an
other
of
the
yeare
1577.
hath
in
the
margen
vpon
the
first
chapter
of
the
Epistle
of
S.
Iohn
,
in
the
last
wordes
.
Or
as
the
same
,
or
other
editions
vpon
the
wordes
of
Iacob
.
Gen.
37.
v.
35.
descendam
ad
filium
meum
Iugens
in
infernum
,
hath
translated
the
worde
infernum
,
hell
,
into
the
worde
Sepulcher
,
or
graue
:
notobstanding
both
the
Hebrewe
worde
Seol
&
the
Greeke
worde
adis
signifie
not
the
graue
but
either
properlie
hell
it selfe
,
or
some
parte
of
the
earth
farre
deeper
then
the
graue
.
And
in
this
manner
Beza
hath
done
vpon
those
wordes
of
the
psalme
.
non
relinques
animam
meam
in
inferno
,
translating
for
animam
Cadauer
&
for
inferno
,
sepulchro
,
&
so
Metamorphizeth
Christs
soule
into
his
bodie
,
&
hell
into
his
graue
.
And
vpn
the
22.
of
sainct
Luke
where
according
to
the
Greeke
text
,
the
sentence
is
,
This
is
the
cup
of
my
blood
which
cuppe
is
shed
for
you
:
Beza
to
eneruate
the
force
of
the
argument
for
the
reall
presence
,
purposelie
translateth
the
wordes
thus
.
This
is
the
cup
of
my
blood
which
blood
is
shed
for
you
.
Also
the
English
bibles
,
whereas
sainct
Peter
in
the
first
chapter
of
his
second
epistle
v.
10.
saith
,
brethren
labore
the
more
that
by
good
workes
you
make
sure
your
vocation
&
election
.
Least
here
,
it
should
appeare
that
good
workes
are
auayleable
or
necessarie
to
saluation
,
they
leaue
out
in
their
translations
the
wordes
:
by
good
workes
,
notobstanding
the
Latin
copies
haue
them
vniuersallie
,
&
some
Greeke
copies
also
,
as
Beza
confesseth
.
And
if
these
be
the
faults
which
Sir
Humfrey
calleth
but
peccadillos
,
surelie
he
hath
a
conscience
as
large
as
a
fryers
sleeue
:
&
if
these
be
his
smale
faults
doubtlesse
according
to
due
proporrion
his
greater
sinnes
are
abomination
.
And
this
is
that
Bible
which
the
Romanists
say
needeth
an
Index
expurgatorie
,
not
that
Sacred
Bible
which
is
truelie
&
sincerelie
translated
according
to
that
text
which
hath
ben
at
the
least
since
the
tyme
of
S.
Augustin
commonlie
vsed
in
the
Church
,
as
appeareth
by
the
Rhemes
Testament
,
which
because
it
is
founde
to
haue
ben
rightlie
translated
,
is
not
arraigned
by
the
Pope
,
but
exposed
to
be
read
euen
by
the
laitie
,
at
the
least
by
licence
&
aduise
of
their
Confessors
.
Further
more
in
regarde
of
the
foresayd
corruptions
&
manie
other
which
for
breuitie
I
omitted
,
made
by
heretikes
in
the
holie
scriptures
,
those
moderne
authours
which
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
(
if
they
be
trulie
cited
)
haue
ben
induced
to
vtter
some
such
speeches
concerning
the
same
as
,
if
they
be
not
trulie
&
piouslie
interpreted
,
may
giue
occasion
of
offence
to
the
reader
:
for
example
when
they
affirme
(
as
he
sayth
)
the
scriptures
to
be
dead
caracters
,
a
dead
,
&
killing
letter
&c.
such
phrases
neuerthelesse
(
as
it
manifestlie
appeareth
by
the
rest
of
their
doctrine
&
discourse
in
those
places
)
are
not
vsed
by
those
authours
with
an
intent
in
anie
sorte
to
disgrace
or
diminish
the
dignitie
of
the
true
worde
of
God
,
but
onelie
by
those
comparatiue
speaches
,
to
declare
how
subiect
the
scriptures
are
to
be
corrupted
&
detorted
to
the
defence
of
heresies
&
errours
if
they
be
considered
preciselie
as
they
are
the
externall
written
letter
,
&
interpreted
otherwise
then
by
the
authoritie
of
the
visible
Church
in
all
ages
,
the
ancient
Councells
,
&
Fathers
,
they
haue
ben
vhderstood
.
Wherefore
those
Romanists
which
the
knight
citeth
as
if
they
had
spoken
irreuerentlie
&
blasphemonlie
of
the
holie
scriptures
doe
no
more
iniurie
vnto
them
then
S.
Paule
did
when
2.
Cor.
3.
he
sayth
of
them
,
litera
occidit
,
the
letter
killeth
,
And
now
altho'
by
this
which
I
haue
sayd
in
generall
touching
this
point
of
blasphemie
against
scripture
supposed
to
be
perpetrated
by
the
Romanists
,
the
authors
by
the
knight
cyted
remaine
sufficientlie
cleared
from
the
imputation
which
he
layes
vpon
them
in
that
nature
:
neuerthelesse
because
by
the
particular
examen
of
the
places
cyted
I
haue
discouered
that
either
all
or
most
of
their
wordes
,
be
either
corruptedlie
rehearsed
,
or
their
sense
detorted
,
&
abused
,
therefore
I
will
seuerallie
repeate
their
passages
,
&
declare
in
what
respects
our
aduersarie
hath
deceitfullie
traduced
them
.
And
to
begin
with
Lindanus
,
his
stromata
in
deed
I
could
not
haue
,
but
I
haue
read
the
place
cited
out
of
his
Panoplia
,
where
I
finde
that
when
he
names
the
scripture
a
dead
&
killing
letter
,
he
onelie
alludes
to
the
wordes
of
S.
Paule
2.
Cor
3.
for
the
letter
killeth
,
but
the
spirit
giue
liues
.
sacrae
litterae
.
sacred
letters
.
And
in
like
manner
I
conceiue
of
Charon
,
who
as
being
of
the
same
faith
&
religion
he
neither
did
nor
dared
to
speake
otherwise
then
with
the
same
due
respect
which
the
Roman
Church
commaundes
the
Romanists
to
vse
towardes
the
holie
written
worde
of
God
.
Canus
in
his
3.
chapter
of
his
second
booke
is
abused
by
the
knight
,
Turrianus
agregiously
abused
in
that
he
is
accused
to
call
the
scriptures
a
Delphick
sword
,
the
riddles
of
Sphinx
and
the
like
:
for
he
doth
not
absolutely
say
they
are
such
,
but
onely
saith
that
if
Christ
had
left
in
his
Church
that
rule
onely
which
the
pretended
reformers
receiued
from
Luther
,
to
wit
that
scriptures
are
easie
to
be
interpreted
and
vnderstanded
,
and
according
as
they
haue
hitherto
expounded
them
in
their
owne
sense
,
then
saith
Turrian
,
what
els
should
we
haue
of
them
then
a
Delphick
sworde
?
In
which
wordes
you
see
he
doth
not
affirme
absolutely
that
the
scriptures
are
such
a
sworde
,
but
onely
that
according
as
the
sectories
handle
them
in
their
false
manner
of
expounding
,
they
may
be
so
compared
:
and
for
this
cause
he
puts
for
his
marginall
note
,
how
to
interpret
scriptures
according
to
ones
owne
proper
sense
is
as
to
haue
a
Delphick
sworde
:
&
so
by
this
&
the
authors
wordes
which
I
quote
in
the
margen
in
Latin
,
his
meaning
is
sufficiently
declared
together
with
the
knights
calumnious
proceeding
against
him
.
Lessius
is
ill
cited
,
for
in
his
11.
reason
he
hath
none
of
those
wordes
quoted
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
yet
in
his
table
he
hath
those
.
Scriptura
quâ
ratione
nasus
cereus
,
regula
lesbia
&c.
nuncupetur
.
Cyting
for
this
,
his
owne
page
130.
of
his
consult
.
Where
yet
he
hath
not
those
formall
wordes
which
Sir
Humfrey
cites
,
but
onely
some
others
to
that
sense
:
yet
the
truth
is
he
doth
not
applye
either
the
words
or
the
sense
to
the
Romanists
,
but
to
the
nouelists
saying
of
them
and
their
interpretation
of
scriptures
by
their
priuate
spirit
.
Scripturam
autem
quisque
pro
suo
captu
&
iudicio
intelligit
,
vnde
cum
se
putant
scripturam
habere
,
regulam
credendi
,
loco
scripturae
habent
imaginationem
propriam
&c.
So
that
here
we
finde
no
blasphemie
in
Lessius
,
but
imposture
in
Sir
Humfrey
.
It
is
true
,
Lessius
in
his
disputation
of
Antichrist
hath
those
formall
words
cyted
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
in
his
page
of
the
same
number
wher
he
saith
:
the
scripture
is
called
by
Catholikes
a
nose
of
Wax
&
a
Lesbious
rule
&c.
but
he
presently
explicates
in
what
sense
,
to
wit
when
it
is
taken
for
the
bare
wordes
or
letter
onely
secluding
the
sense
of
the
Church
&
the
interpretation
of
Fathers
as
saith
he
,
it
is
taken
by
heretikes
.
So
that
it
is
plaine
that
Lessius
doth
not
say
that
Catholikes
calle
the
true
scripture
together
with
the
true
sense
,
a
nose
of
Wax
,
but
onely
the
naked
text
&
as
it
is
abused
by
corrupters
.
In
the
citation
of
Pighius
Sir
Humfrey
ought
to
haue
continued
his
rehearsal
from
the
beginning
of
his
wordes
to
the
end
of
the
period
of
the
authors
whole
passage
,
&
then
it
would
haue
appeared
plainelie
howe
falselie
he
is
accused
.
For
so
he
discourseth
.
But
because
(
saith
he
)
no
place
of
scripture
is
so
plaine
or
open
as
it
can
defend
itselte
from
the
iniurie
of
the
heretikes
who
adulterate
,
depraue
,
&
detort
it
to
their
owne
sense
,
for
they
(
as
one
no
lesse
truelie
then
merrilie
hath
sayd
)
are
euen
as
a
nose
of
wax
which
doth
easilie
suffer
it selfe
to
be
fashioned
&
drawne
this
way
,
&
that
way
,
&
which
way
thou
wilst
,
&
like
a
certaine
leaden
rule
vsed
in
the
buildings
of
Lesbos
,
which
is
not
harde
to
be
accomodated
to
what
you
will
;
there
must
be
a
line
ioyned
vnto
it
,
such
a
one
as
is
not
as
flexible
as
it selfe
,
but
firme
&
stiffe
,
I
say
that
pillar
,
that
firmament
of
Catholike
trueth
,
that
is
the
common
sense
&
sentence
of
the
Church
,
then
wee
shall
be
certaine
&
sure
of
the
true
vnderstanding
of
the
scriptures
,
if
it
be
consonant
in
all
things
to
her
which
as
she
giues
Canonicall
authoritie
to
the
scriptures
,
so
is
she
truly
the
Lydius
Lapis
or
touche
stone
of
the
true
&
Orthodox
interpretation
of
the
same
&c.
And
conformable
to
this
also
which
wee
haue
said
because
the
Romanists
know
by
experience
how
falselie
the
misreformers
vse
to
deale
in
their
citations
as
partelie
hath
been
conuinced
in
diuers
places
of
this
censure
,
therefore
&
not
for
anie
other
cause
doe
they
some
tymes
if
they
cite
the
Fathers
,
iustelie
reiect
them
as
by
them
corrupted
or
falselie
cited
.
And
so
if
they
cite
Berengarius
&
the
waldenses
they
iustelie
reiect
them
as
heretikes
:
If
they
cite
reformers
for
Romanists
they
iustely
reiect
them
for
none
of
theirs
.
If
they
cite
Catholike
authours
impertinentlie
,
corruptedlie
,
or
in
a
false
sense
,
they
iustelie
reiected
them
as
abused
by
them
&
so
remit
them
to
the
Censurers
purgatorie
.
If
they
cite
scriptures
either
falselie
translated
by
addition
,
or
detraction
,
or
falselie
interpreted
,
or
falsified
,
they
iustelie
reiect
them
as
imperfect
,
&
as
made
by
them
a
couerture
for
theeues
,
&
an
officine
or
shop
of
heretikes
,
And
yet
notobstanding
all
this
it
is
manifest
both
by
an
expresse
decree
which
the
Councell
of
Trent
made
in
the
fourth
ses
.
against
the
profaners
of
the
sacred
scriptures
,
But
for
all
this
Sir
Humfrey
is
still
harping
vpon
that
string
that
the
Roman
Church
houlds
the
scriptures
to
be
imperfect
:
but
I
knowe
none
that
makes
them
so
imperfect
as
the
misreformed
Churches
by
cutting
of
diuers
partes
of
them
,
and
condemning
them
for
Apochripha
in
their
consistoriall
sessions
,
&
by
corrupting
the
text
by
false
translations
&
erroneous
interpretations
as
I
haue
aboue
declared
.
And
touching
the
Roman
Church
I
haue
alreadie
tould
him
that
he
belyeth
her
.
For
neither
she
here selfe
nor
anie
of
her
members
euer
defended
that
tenet
absolutelie
that
the
scriptures
are
imperfect
.
But
onelie
some
Romanists
affirme
the
scriptures
alone
to
be
no
perfect
rule
of
faith
,
yet
they
neuer
say
they
are
imperfect
.
For
one
thing
it
is
to
be
perfect
in
them selues
,
&
an
other
thing
to
be
perfect
as
they
be
a
rule
of
faith
.
The
first
is
absolutelie
true
&
maintained
by
all
Romanists
;
the
second
is
but
true
secundum
quid
,
&
with
restriction
,
as
before
hath
ben
declared
,
or
as
it
is
but
one
parte
yet
the
cheefest
&
the
farre
more
perfect
&
noble
.
Wherefore
the
Romanists
as
the
reader
may
perceiue
hould
both
the
scriptures
&
Fathers
for
perfect
&
campleit
absolutelie
speaking
,
wher
as
the
reformers
whatsoeuer
they
say
in
wordes
,
yet
indeeds
they
doe
mangle
&
martyrize
them
most
cruellie
,
as
a
booke
published
by
a
reformed
minister
,
called
the
censure
of
the
Fathers
doth
giue
ouer
plaine
testimonie
.
And
to
say
the
Romanists
silence
scriptures
,
it
is
so
manifest
an
vntruth
as
it
needs
no
other
confutation
.
But
by
the
lye
.
Neyther
doe
they
otherwise
purge
either
them
or
anie
learned
writers
,
but
onelie
,
or
at
the
least
cheefelie
from
such
darnell
as
you
enimies
to
the
Crop
of
Christ
vse
to
sowe
by
night
in
the
feild
of
faith
.
According
to
the
sentence
of
the
authour
of
the
Impect
Commentarie
of
S.
Mathewe
hom.
44.
speaking
of
hereticall
Preists
,
whose
wordes
altho'
the
knight
world
faine
applie
them
against
the
Romanists
,
yet
they
can
not
possible
be
so
trulie
&
fitlie
accommodated
to
anie
as
to
his
owne
ministers
&
Bishops
,
whose
common
&
knowne
practice
is
by
seueritie
of
lawes
&
all
fortes
of
punishment
&
not
by
their
bookes
&
writings
to
musle
the
Romanists
mouthes
,
because
(
to
vse
the
wordes
of
the
foresaid
author
)
they
knowe
that
if
the
truth
be
once
layd
open
,
their
Church
shall
be
forsaken
&
they
from
their
Pontificall
dignitie
shall
be
brought
downe
to
the
basenesse
of
the
people
.
And
now
we
see
by
the
examen
of
this
whole
section
howe
false
Sir
Humfreyes
cardes
haue
proued
&
how
plainelie
he
hath
lost
the
game
notwithstanding
all
his
iudling
tricks
&
counterfeit
shuffling
,
of
which
sleights
there
are
such
great
store
in
this
section
that
there
is
no
place
for
anie
matter
of
substance
but
onelie
verball
florishes
to
giue
colour
&
countenance
to
his
fained
&
calumnious
accusations
.
THE
XIV
.
PERIOD
.
SIR
Humfrey
tells
vs
that
in
this
section
following
there
are
contained
allegations
collected
out
of
Bellarmin
for
testification
of
the
truth
of
the
reformed
doctrine
in
the
cheefe
points
of
controuersie
.
I
haue
alreadie
declared
that
the
Romanists
reiect
not
either
true
scriptures
,
or
Fathers
;
nor
yet
anie
other
authours
of
the
Roman
Church
,
but
onelie
as
either
corrupted
by
heretikes
,
or
els
onelie
where
we
finde
them
to
haue
some
singular
opinion
,
or
tenet
against
the
vniforme
doctrine
of
the
rest
in
matters
of
faith
manners
,
or
Ecclesiasticall
practice
or
discipline
:
or
els
in
some
particular
points
not
then
sufficientlie
declared
&
determined
by
the
Church
when
they
did
so
vtter
their
opinions
;
of
which
sorte
of
writers
neuerthelesse
there
neuer
were
anie
such
either
in
number
or
qualitie
of
doctrine
as
could
either
make
or
marre
the
antiquitie
&
vniuersalitie
of
the
Church
in
that
nature
.
And
as
for
Bellarmin
whome
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
in
this
section
,
we
are
so
farre
from
taking
exceptions
at
anie
thing
that
he
euer
writ
&
published
,
that
we
all
hould
him
for
a
most
faithfull
&
diligent
defender
not
onelie
of
the
principall
points
of
our
faith
but
also
of
euerie
one
of
them
in
particular
,
&
of
the
whole
Roman
doctrine
in
so
much
that
I
accounte
it
no
lesse
then
plaine
madnesse
in
that
man
whoe
shall
offer
to
make
vse
of
his
testimonie
for
the
contrarie
,
knowing
for
certaine
that
if
he
be
sincerelie
alledged
&
rightlie
vnderstanded
,
nothing
can
be
founde
in
him
for
the
aduerse
parte
.
And
to
the
end
that
this
may
more
plainely
appeare
I
will
breeflie
examen
those
particular
places
which
Sir
Humfrey
produceth
,
for
the
contrarie
.
First
therefore
he
citeth
Bellarmin
as
confessing
the
vncertainty
of
all
the
Trent
Sacraments
(
as
the
knight
termeth
them
)
because
forsooth
in
his
third
booke
of
Iustification
the
8.
chap.
he
graunteth
that
none
can
be
certaine
by
the
certaintie
of
faith
that
he
receiueth
a
true
Sacrament
,
in
regard
in
depends
vpon
the
intention
of
the
minister
.
But
this
testimonie
I
haue
alreadie
shewed
to
be
delusorie
,
&
it
is
wholie
impertinent
to
the
purpose
,
for
that
the
question
aboute
the
necessitie
of
the
knowledge
of
the
intention
of
the
minister
by
faith
,
is
no
principall
controuersie
betwixt
vs
but
rather
meerelie
incident
.
Neyther
yet
can
the
reformers
finde
the
contrarie
position
in
anie
place
of
scripture
by
that
meanes
to
make
it
a
point
of
faith
for
themselues
.
Secondlie
he
induceth
Bellarmin
lib.
3.
de
Eucharist
cap.
23.
touching
the
reformers
denyall
of
transsubstantiation
.
To
which
place
I
haue
also
ansered
before
;
&
it
is
not
for
this
purpose
,
in
regarde
there
is
no
mention
of
anie
denyall
of
the
trueth
of
trassubstantiation
,
or
confession
of
the
Reformers
tenet
in
that
point
:
but
onelie
of
an
other
incident
question
,
viz.
whether
transsubstantiation
can
be
proued
by
expresse
wordes
of
scripture
.
And
at
least
touching
the
maine
point
(
to
omit
the
other
as
impertinent
&
disagreable
to
the
title
of
our
aduersaries
question
which
is
of
principal
points
of
controuersie
,
)
it
is
too
cleare
that
Bellarmin
defended
the
affirmatiue
in
terminis
,
in
plaine
tearmes
.
And
so
this
is
no
such
confession
as
Sir
Humfrey
seekes
for
in
this
place
.
Besides
that
all
Bellarmins
confession
is
but
one
pore
non
est
improbabile
:
Thirdlie
he
citeth
Bellarmins
confession
against
priuate
Masse
lib.
2.
de
Missa
cap.
9.
&
10.
But
the
latter
place
I
haue
examined
before
&
founde
it
corrupted
by
Sir
Humfrey
both
in
wordes
&
sense
neyther
are
the
wordes
sincerelie
recited
by
omission
of
omnino
,
&
sine
declaratione
Ecclesiae
,
&
transposition
of
the
text
.
And
here
I
further
adde
that
neyther
of
the
places
is
to
this
purpose
,
because
they
proue
no
vnlawfulnesse
,
or
absolute
imperfection
in
priuate
Masses
,
but
onelie
at
the
most
their
lesse
lawfulnes
,
their
lesse
perfection
,
or
their
want
of
frequentation
in
the
primatiue
ages
:
which
is
no
principall
point
of
controuersie
betweene
the
Reformers
,
&
Romanists
,
nay
none
at
all
.
And
touching
Bellarmins
confession
contained
in
the
first
place
,
viz.
That
we
read
not
expressely
,
but
gather
by
coniectures
that
the
ancients
did
sacrifice
without
communion
of
some
person
,
or
persons
,
I
say
it
is
impertinent
in
regarde
it
inuolues
no
disproofe
of
priuate
Masses
,
as
our
aduersarie
counningly
indeuores
to
persuade
his
vnaduised
reader
.
It
being
sufficient
for
the
instification
of
the
practise
of
them
,
that
besides
the
authoritie
of
the
present
Church
which
approues
them
,
not
anie
worde
either
of
scripture
,
or
ancient
Fathers
can
be
produced
in
which
they
ar
condemned
for
vnlawful
,
or
repugnant
to
Christs
institution
,
or
commaunde
.
And
if
more
then
this
were
required
for
matters
of
practise
in
this
nature
:
certaine
it
is
the
pretensiue
reformers
of
the
Church
,
would
neuer
be
able
to
iustifie
their
owne
order
,
and
prescription
of
communicating
at
Easter
,
or
some
twise
or
thrise
more
in
the
yeare
:
or
their
newe
prohibition
of
not
receiuing
their
communion
euen
at
the
point
of
death
without
a
competent
number
:
of
neyther
of
which
they
haue
not
as
much
as
one
pore
instance
,
or
example
in
the
primatiue
Church
.
By
which
it
appeares
that
Bellarmins
confession
is
in
this
passage
preposterously
alledged
by
the
knight
both
in
respect
of
the
Roman
Doctrine
against
which
it
concludeth
nothing
,
as
alsoe
in
respect
of
the
inconuenience
which
by
sequele
and
illation
it
induceth
to
his
owne
:
whoe
yet
offers
the
Cardinal
some
further
abuse
by
omission
of
the
worde
facile
,
in
the
recytal
of
his
text
.
Where
the
reader
may
yet
once
more
reflect
,
that
altho'
Bellarmin
in
his
modestie
tearmed
the
examples
of
antiquitie
which
he
produceth
for
the
practise
of
priuate
Masses
at
the
least
in
some
particular
cases
,
no
more
then
coniectures
:
yet
if
some
of
them
be
duely
pondered
&
vrged
with
their
circumstances
,
they
may
iustely
passe
for
solid
reasons
:
as
that
S.
Chrysostome
diuers
tymes
reprehending
the
people
most
sharpely
&
vehemently
for
making
the
Masses
priuate
by
their
not
communicating
in
them
:
yet
doth
he
not
once
either
condemne
such
Masses
in
them selues
,
or
he
him selfe
euer
ceased
to
celebrate
them
dayly
euen
then
when
he
most
preached
against
the
negligence
of
those
whoe
were
present
in
them
without
receiuing
the
sacrament
with
the
preist
.
Which
doubtlesse
is
a
morally
concluding
argument
that
Masses
without
communion
of
the
people
were
vsed
and
esteemed
lawful
euen
in
those
more
primatiue
&
ancient
ages
.
To
which
may
not
vnaptely
be
added
for
confirmation
of
the
same
discourse
by
way
of
aduertisment
,
that
S.
Chrysostome
neuer
affirmed
in
these
occasions
of
complainte
of
the
people
,
that
Masses
in
which
communicants
ar
wanting
,
be
euill
or
contrarie
to
Christs
ordinance
or
precept
,
but
the
most
he
said
was
,
that
the
oblation
is
frustrate
when
ther
be
none
to
participate
:
which
wordes
of
his
ar
soe
farre
from
reprouing
the
practise
,
&
vse
of
Masses
without
comunion
of
the
people
,
that
they
necessarily
implye
that
the
sacrifice
was
in
realitie
cebebrated
,
notobstanding
the
people
did
frustrate
the
intention
of
the
preist
in
that
by
their
want
of
deuotion
they
receiued
not
the
Communion
which
he
had
prepared
for
them
:
supposing
it
is
absolutely
inpossible
to
conceiue
that
the
Masse
or
oblation
could
be
frustrated
for
wante
of
partakers
,
except
it
were
in
it selfe
a
Masse
or
oblation
truely
&
really
performed
by
the
sacrificer
.
Fourthlie
it
is
true
that
Bellarmin
confesseth
that
in
the
primatiue
Church
,
because
the
Christians
were
but
fewe
,
they
did
all
sing
&
ansere
in
the
diuine
offices
.
But
he
affirmeth
not
that
either
it
then
was
,
or
now
is
vnlawfull
to
haue
the
publike
,
or
priuate
prayer
in
an
vnknowne
tongue
,
which
is
the
onelie
point
in
controuersie
,
the
reformers
defending
touth
&
naile
the
affirmatiue
,
&
the
Romanists
the
negatiue
.
Nay
Bellarmin
is
soe
farre
from
confessing
the
reformers
doctrine
in
this
particular
,
that
he
expresselie
affirmeth
in
the
same
place
that
the
diuine
offices
in
those
primatiue
times
were
celebrated
in
Greeke
which
all
the
people
did
not
vnderstand
,
&
yet
cleareth
this
whole
question
so
farre
that
if
Sir
Humfrey
had
vsed
anie
sparke
of
sinceritie
in
citing
Bellarmins
wordes
home
&
truelie
,
they
would
haue
taken
away
all
doubt
concerning
his
meaning
:
Whereas
by
leauing
out
deceitfullie
the
latter
parte
of
his
clause
,
he
caused
in
his
reader
a
preuidicate
opinion
of
the
true
sense
,
touching
which
,
and
the
faithlesse
proceeding
of
our
aduersarie
about
the
same
,
the
Cardinals
owne
wordes
intirely
recited
will
tell
the
truth
:
for
thus
he
speakes
.
At
obijcies
sicut
Apostolus
&c.
But
(
saith
Bellarmin
)
you
will
obiect
.
As
the
Apostle
would
that
the
people
might
subioine
,
Amen
:
so
also
he
was
to
ordaine
that
the
diuine
offices
should
be
celebrated
in
the
vulgar
tongue
that
the
people
might
answer
,
Amen
.
Firstlie
touching
the
allegation
of
Bellarmins
confession
of
the
reformers
tenet
aboute
the
Communion
in
both
kyndes
,
it
is
most
false
that
Bellarmin
confesseth
it
in
the
point
in
controuersie
,
Sixtlie
touching
the
confession
of
Bellarmin
aboute
the
duall
number
of
proper
Sacraments
,
we
haue
alreadie
shewed
him
to
be
quite
opposite
to
the
reformers
doctrine
,
&
also
haue
examined
the
same
place
which
Sir
Humfrey
citeth
here
and
founde
the
sense
of
the
Cardinall
to
haue
ben
egregiouslie
by
him
transuerted
&
corrupted
,
&
so
here
is
no
confession
of
anie
principall
point
of
controuersie
made
by
him
in
fauour
of
his
aduersaries
,
but
a
new
repetition
of
an
old
imposture
of
the
knights
owne
making
.
Lastelie
the
knight
citeth
two
places
,
of
Bellarmin
.
The
first
out
of
his
3.
booke
of
Iustification
the
6.
chapter
,
is
touching
the
reformers
faith
&
good
workes
which
he
affirmeth
Bellarmin
to
confesse
.
But
what
a
ridiculous
allegation
is
this
?
For
it
is
true
Bellarmin
confesseth
in
the
place
cited
that
the
reformers
hould
faith
&
repentance
are
requisite
to
iustification
&
that
without
them
no
man
can
be
iustified
,
but
this
is
no
principall
point
of
controuersie
:
nay
no
question
at
all
betwene
the
Romanists
&
the
reformers
,
but
onelie
a
point
of
doctrine
which
the
reformers
doe
commonlie
teach
&
the
Romanists
doe
not
denie
.
So
that
this
is
impertinentlie
alledged
out
of
Bellarmin
for
faith
&
good
workes
since
that
in
the
wordes
cited
out
of
him
there
is
not
one
sillable
of
good
workes
,
but
onelie
of
faith
&
repentance
as
the
reader
sees
.
But
yet
that
which
is
most
absurde
of
all
is
that
Sir
Humfrey
haueing
here
cited
Bellarmins
confession
that
the
reformers
hould
both
faith
&
repentance
to
be
required
to
iustification
,
yet
presentlie
after
he
citeth
the
same
Bellarmin
as
concluding
with
the
reformed
Churches
iustification
by
faith
onely
,
so
that
within
the
compasse
of
one
page
the
knight
out
of
the
profunditie
of
his
great
head
peace
resolueth
in
fauour
of
his
owne
cause
out
of
Bellarmin
both
that
without
a
liuely
faith
&
an
ernest
repentance
no
man
is
iustified
,
&
also
that
according
to
the
doctrine
of
the
reformed
Churches
mans
iustification
is
by
faith
onelie
.
Let
the
reader
if
,
he
be
able
couple
these
two
together
,
but
if
he
can
not
let
him
hould
for
certaine
that
Sir
Humfrey
line
was
farre
out
of
quare
when
he
vttered
such
disparates
.
Now
the
second
place
of
the
two
laste
is
touching
iustification
by
faith
onelie
.
But
this
hath
ben
examined
before
,
&
founde
to
containe
no
confession
of
iustification
by
faith
onelie
(
as
the
knight
will
haue
it
,
vnaduisedly
contradicting
himselfe
out
of
an
inordinate
desire
to
make
Bellarmin
seeme
to
stand
for
the
doctrine
of
his
Church
)
but
onelie
that
Bellarmin
speaketh
there
of
confidence
in
merits
according
to
the
sense
aboue
declared
.
And
thus
Sir
Humfrey
hauing
cited
all
he
can
,
which
all
neuerthelesse
is
iuste
nothing
,
he
addeth
for
all
this
that
he
wondreth
why
the
Romanists
should
send
out
such
Anathemas
&
curses
against
all
or
anie
of
those
that
denie
their
doctrine
.
But
I
wonder
more
that
he
who
hath
produced
nothing
either
in
this
chapter
or
in
the
rest
of
his
booke
out
of
Catholike
authours
which
in
his
sense
&
meaning
doth
not
rather
deserue
to
be
hissed
at
,
then
to
be
admitted
for
anie
proofe
of
his
doctrine
,
yet
should
not
be
ashamed
to
affirme
that
the
best
learned
of
the
Romanists
confesse
that
manie
principall
points
of
their
owne
religion
&
manie
articles
of
their
faith
,
are
neither
ancient
,
safe
,
nor
Catholike
.
And
suerlie
I
can
not
conceiue
but
that
both
he
&
who
soeuer
els
should
vse
so
much
false
dealing
as
he
hath
done
,
in
propugning
their
owne
tenets
especiallie
in
matters
of
religion
,
deserue
the
Anathema
in
the
highest
degree
,
that
curse
being
the
proper
brande
of
the
defenders
of
erroneous
,
hereticall
,
or
scysmaticall
doctrine
.
And
indeed
it
seemes
Sir
Humfrey
had
not
verie
great
conference
in
the
industrie
which
he
hath
vsed
in
this
his
worke
.
For
notobstanding
it
appeareth
manifestlie
that
he
putteth
the
greatest
streingth
of
his
proofes
through
out
his
whole
booke
in
the
multitude
of
authours
especiallie
Romanists
,
whome
by
way
of
emendication
or
begerie
he
alledgeth
as
confessers
of
his
faith
,
yet
he
here
flyeth
to
the
little
flock
&
to
the
paucitie
of
beleeuers
&
to
the
simplicitie
of
babes
as
to
speciall
caracters
of
the
true
Church
,
&
vtterlie
disclaming
from
humane
wisdome
,
power
,
&
nobilitie
:
a
pore
refuge
after
so
manie
great
boasts
&
bragges
of
the
victorie
obteined
(
as
he
imagineth
,
but
falselie
)
by
meere
authoritie
&
multiplicitie
of
testimonies
piled
vp
both
in
text
,
&
margin
;
now
to
plead
paucitie
,
simplicitie
&
want
of
power
,
&
wisdome
.
And
as
for
your
paucitie
in
number
Sir
Humfrey
I
will
not
stick
to
graunt
in
regard
that
how
great
a
shewe
soeuer
you
haue
made
to
the
contrarie
,
yet
I
knowe
you
to
be
most
pore
&
beggerlie
in
that
nature
,
but
yet
I
denie
that
to
be
a
speciall
&
infallible
marke
of
the
true
Church
as
you
insinuate
,
no
more
then
the
paucitie
of
Manicheans
or
Donatists
was
a
marke
of
the
truth
of
their
Churches
.
And
the
same
I
say
of
the
want
of
might
,
wisdome
,
nobilitie
,
I
meane
of
true
,
power
,
wisdome
,
&
nobilitie
,
for
of
power
,
wisdome
&
nobilitie
of
the
flesh
you
must
needs
haue
much
more
then
the
Romanists
,
in
regarde
it
is
well
knowne
you
both
handle
&
eate
farre
greater
quantitie
then
they
doe
,
witnesse
your
little
abstinence
&
the
rest
which
modestie
causeth
mee
to
passe
in
silence
:
And
touching
your
simplicitie
except
by
simplicitie
you
meane
plaine
ignorance
,
you
haue
no
colour
here
to
bragge
of
it
,
for
that
there
was
neuer
flock
in
the
world
,
in
my
opinion
,
so
full
of
all
sortes
of
duplicitie
as
your
owne
.
Neither
hath
anie
man
greater
reight
to
be
a
sheepe
of
that
fould
then
the
noble
knight
Sir
Humfrey
,
who
out
of
the
abundance
of
his
double
dealing
euen
in
this
place
,
to
say
nothing
of
that
which
is
paste
,
hath
made
choise
of
as
false
&
fallacious
markes
of
his
owne
Church
as
he
hath
calumniouslie
fained
markes
for
ours
to
wit
counterfeit
miracles
which
neuerthelesse
wee
disclame
from
&
detest
more
then
he
and
all
his
consortes
.
And
if
they
will
needs
medle
of
these
matters
,
let
them
reflect
vpon
their
Master
Caluin
how
faine
he
would
haue
confirmed
his
newe
Gospell
with
a
forged
resuscitation
of
a
pore
man
who
by
his
instructions
,
fained
death
,
but
the
false
Prophet
fayling
of
his
purpose
committed
a
murder
in
steed
of
a
miracle
.
The
knight
saith
further
that
we
beleeue
lyes
:
But
I
say
that
he
doth
not
onely
beleeue
them
but
makes
them
,
as
appeares
by
this
his
pamphlet
in
which
,
as
we
see
,
ther
is
great
store
.
euen
at
this
present
time
miracles
are
operated
or
done
in
his
name
:
(
in
the
name
of
Christ
)
either
by
the
Sacraments
,
or
by
the
prayers
,
&
memories
of
his
saints
.
And
the
same
S.
Aug.
in
the
same
place
further
relates
one
famous
miracle
in
particular
done
at
the
bodie
of
S.
Geruase
,
&
Protase
in
Milan
where
he
himselfe
remained
at
that
present
time
.
And
by
this
it
is
euident
that
S.
Aug.
in
the
other
place
produced
by
Sir
Humfrey
onely
condemneth
him
whoe
for
want
of
miracles
should
refuse
to
beleeue
,
to
which
we
Romanists
most
willingly
agree
.
And
by
this
it
appeareth
that
S.
Augustin
is
here
impertinently
alledged
by
the
knight
.
But
the
trueth
is
that
because
these
companions
haue
no
miracles
in
their
owne
Church
,
they
striue
by
all
meanes
possible
to
obscure
the
miracles
of
the
Church
of
Rome
&
crye
out
like
Bedlames
:
ther
is
no
need
of
miracles
.
And
now
to
come
to
a
conclusion
of
this
section
,
&
the
censure
of
it
,
I
would
faine
knowe
of
Sir
Humfrey
what
is
all
this
discourse
of
miracles
to
the
purpose
of
testifying
his
doctrine
by
the
confession
of
Bellarmin
,
surely
nothing
at
all
.
&
I
persuade
my selfe
the
knight
was
mightly
distracted
when
he
penned
it
,
and
so
I
leaue
him
till
he
returnes
to
his
more
perfect
senses
.
THE
XV.
PERIOD
.
SIR
Humfrey
playeth
the
parte
of
a
Charlatan
so
farre
that
he
is
not
content
by
his
prestigious
trickes
&
sleights
to
laie
clame
to
ancient
Fathers
&
moderne
Romanists
for
confessors
of
his
owne
faith
,
but
also
out
of
the
groasenes
of
his
education
,
in
this
section
he
presumeth
to
laie
his
greasie
handes
vpon
those
holie
primatiue
martyres
,
&
champions
of
Iesus
Christ
ingrossing
&
conueying
those
sacred
wares
into
his
owne
stincking
store-house
,
which
neuerthelesse
all
ages
,
all
Christian
people
,
all
nations
haue
till
the
dayes
of
Luther
proclamed
&
testified
to
pertaine
to
the
renowne
&
glorie
of
the
Roman
Church
.
And
altho'
he
would
seeme
to
proue
that
the
foresaid
prime
martyrs
doe
not
belong
to
the
Church
of
Rome
,
yet
his
cheefe
proofe
is
but
prating
&
an
idle
application
of
his
owne
tenets
alreadie
examined
&
confuted
in
their
seuerall
places
,
where
they
haue
ben
all
founde
either
plainelie
false
,
or
at
the
least
equiuocall
&
founded
vpon
false
suppositions
vpon
which
no
true
argument
can
be
framed
:
which
being
so
I
may
iustelie
saue
labour
to
descend
to
particulars
,
yet
one
onelie
wil
I
specifie
which
is
so
shamefullie
impertinent
that
it
is
sufficient
alone
to
shame
the
rest
.
He
sayth
therefore
that
Father
Garnet
being
demaunded
whether
if
he
were
to
consecrate
the
Sacrament
that
morning
he
should
suffer
death
,
he
durst
after
consecration
affirme
vpon
his
Saluation
that
the
wine
in
the
cup
consecrated
was
the
verie
blood
of
Christ
which
flowed
from
his
side
,
he
made
ansere
it
might
iustelie
be
doubted
.
This
is
the
wise
storie
which
Sir
Humfrey
telleth
vs
out
of
Bishop
Andrewes
,
which
altho'
wee
are
not
bounde
to
beleeue
as
being
iustified
onelie
by
our
aduersaries
,
yet
suppose
it
is
as
true
as
their
Gospell
,
it
maketh
not
anie
thing
for
this
purpose
,
for
that
Sir
Humfreys
taske
in
this
place
was
not
to
medle
with
martyrs
of
these
later
ages
,
but
to
demonstrate
that
those
ancient
martyrs
of
former
ages
did
not
die
for
that
fayth
which
the
present
Roman
Church
professeth
,
&
so
what
soeuer
he
or
his
Prelate
can
faigne
of
Father
Garnet
is
but
a
fooles
boult
which
flying
at
randome
cometh
not
neare
the
marke
.
Father
Garnet
sayth
hee
,
durst
not
pronounce
openlie
ouer
the
cup
after
he
had
consecrated
it
,
this
is
the
bloud
of
Christ
,
ergo
neuer
anie
martyr
did
take
it
vpon
his
death
that
the
consecrated
bread
is
the
corporall
&
reall
flesh
of
Christ
.
Behould
I
praye
this
most
subtill
Logike
of
a
knight
&
admire
it
.
Or
if
you
list
rather
laffe
at
it
as
I
did
when
I
founde
it
out
,
&
so
I
lefte
it
without
anie
further
confutation
,
imagining
that
perhaps
Sir
Humfrey
long
before
he
was
borne
did
miraculouslie
speake
with
some
of
those
ancient
souldiers
of
Christ
,
&
so
came
to
knowe
that
none
of
them
euer
gaue
their
liues
for
the
reall
presence
.
Which
in
deed
is
the
point
in
question
,
&
not
whether
a
man
can
lawfullie
pronounce
vpon
his
Saluation
whether
this
or
that
hoste
in
particular
after
consecration
,
containeth
the
bodie
of
Christ
,
as
the
knight
captiouslie
supposeth
But
yet
shewing
vs
some
more
graines
of
his
follie
he
sayth
further
,
that
it
is
vndoubtedlie
true
that
the
ancient
martyrs
could
not
dye
in
that
fayth
nor
for
that
religion
which
was
altogether
vnknowne
to
their
church
.
O
ingenious
gentilman
!
but
yet
I
pray
tell
me
if
the
fore
sayd
martyrs
dyed
not
for
the
Romanists
religion
because
as
you
faigne
,
they
dyed
not
for
the
profession
of
the
reall
presence
,
For
what
religion
did
they
dye
?
Suerlie
not
for
yours
,
because
if
our
religion
was
vnknowne
vnto
them
,
much
more
was
yours
vnknowne
to
their
ages
which
was
not
in
the
world
before
the
daies
of
Luther
,
except
perhaps
your
39.
articles
were
knowne
vnto
them
by
extraordinarie
reuelation
before
they
were
coyned
.
It
is
true
here
we
haue
Sir
Humfreys
ipse
dixit
for
confirmation
of
his
tenet
,
&
so
it
must
needs
be
doubtlesse
,
his
authority
is
so
excessiuely
great
.
And
if
this
be
not
so
,
if
those
glorious
martyrs
were
not
defenders
of
that
Roman
faith
which
by
succession
of
pastours
is
deriued
&
arriued
to
this
our
time
,
I
demaund
of
our
aduersaries
of
what
other
faith
they
were
,
for
of
the
reformed
faith
they
could
not
possible
bee
in
regarde
that
none
of
them
either
tought
in
their
life
,
or
died
for
the
defence
of
Iustification
by
faith
onelie
,
or
for
the
deniall
of
the
reall
presence
of
the
bodie
&
blood
of
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
,
nor
for
denying
that
there
is
anie
other
worde
of
God
but
onelie
scripture
.
Nor
for
affirming
that
the
images
of
Christ
&
his
Saints
are
Idols
,
or
that
they
who
honore
them
adore
idols
,
or
stickes
&
stones
,
or
that
the
Pope
was
Antichrist
:
nor
doe
wee
finde
in
anie
historie
either
anie
of
this
,
nor
yet
that
the
foresayd
martyrs
suffered
for
these
,
or
anie
other
point
of
the
reformers
doctrine
which
is
contrarie
to
the
faith
of
the
present
Roman
Church
.
Wherefore
the
sayd
reformers
must
necessarilie
confesse
that
the
ancient
martyrs
died
either
for
ours
or
for
no
other
Christian
doctrine
,
&
consequentlie
that
they
are
eyther
ours
or
no
martyrs
at
all
.
And
if
they
were
Popes
of
Rome
as
you
Puritans
your selues
cannot
denie
,
how
could
they
possible
be
yours
who
beleeue
the
Pope
is
Antichrist
,
&
are
so
farre
from
that
kynde
of
gouernement
that
you
doe
not
willingly
admit
eyther
Pope
,
Prince
,
or
Prelate
,
but
onelie
a
consistoriall
Anarchie
without
head
or
feet
.
And
he
that
shall
duelie
ponder
these
particulars
,
doubtlesse
his
conscience
will
tell
him
howe
vniustelie
Sir
Humfrey
indeuoreth
to
wreist
from
the
Roman
Church
those
rich
prises
.
And
let
this
suffice
for
the
censure
of
this
section
&
to
shewe
that
the
Romanists
by
their
claime
to
the
martyrs
of
the
primatiue
Church
pretend
nothing
but
their
due
.
THE
XVI
.
PERIOD
.
THE
17.
section
containeth
an
ansere
to
an
obiection
of
the
Romanists
drawne
from
the
opinion
of
Protestants
touching
the
Saluation
of
professed
Romanists
,
where
Sir
Humfrey
telleth
vs
,
he
is
come
to
the
greatest
wonder
.
And
I
confesse
the
wonder
which
the
knight
proposeth
is
great
,
but
it
being
of
his
owne
making
,
it
is
not
hee
that
ought
to
wonder
at
it
but
rather
in
my
opinion
he
should
leaue
that
to
others
.
And
truelie
it
is
most
wonderfull
to
mee
to
heare
that
the
Romanists
themselues
should
confesse
their
owne
doctrine
to
be
different
from
the
ancient
Church
in
manie
principall
points
of
faith
,
but
this
hauing
alreadie
ben
demonstrated
to
be
false
&
feigned
by
Sir
Humfrey
,
the
greatest
wonder
of
all
wonders
is
that
he
should
haue
the
face
to
make
a
wonder
of
his
owne
so
often
repeated
vntruthes
.
It
is
true
the
Romanists
constantlie
hould
that
neyther
Lutheran
nor
Caluinist
,
nor
anie
other
heretike
or
Scismatike
dying
in
his
heresie
obstinatelie
can
be
saued
,
for
so
they
say
with
him
that
could
commit
no
rashe
iudgement
,
he
that
doth
not
beleeue
is
alreadie
iudged
.
Sir
Humfrey
proceedeth
on
babling
aboute
a
Citie
seated
vpon
seuen
mountaines
which
he
fondelie
houldeth
for
a
marke
of
the
false
Church
&
applyeth
it
to
the
Roman
Church
.
But
if
Rome
were
the
seate
of
the
false
Church
because
it
is
planted
vpon
seuen
mountaines
,
then
how
scaped
it
from
that
staine
all
those
fiue
hundreth
yeares
in
which
the
reformers
themselues
graunt
it
was
the
mother
Church
?
After
this
Sir
Humfrey
descends
to
diuers
particulars
&
demaundeth
whether
he
&
his
fellowes
be
accursed
for
maintaining
them
or
no
?
and
whether
the
Romanists
be
blessed
for
such
&
such
points
which
they
defende
against
the
sectaries
?
And
thus
he
runneth
a
long
betweene
blessing
&
cursing
till
he
concludes
casting
the
curses
vpon
the
Romanists
&
the
blessings
vpon
his
owne
Congregation
.
But
because
ther
is
little
or
nothing
but
such
false
stuffe
as
I
haue
alreadie
examined
&
censured
,
&
because
I
haue
quite
surfeited
with
so
frequent
repetition
of
the
same
subiect
:
I
onely
saye
in
generall
,
as
he
is
blessed
whoe
heareth
or
obeyeth
the
Church
in
all
things
in
regarde
that
by
obeying
the
Church
he
obeyeth
Christ
whoe
blesseth
them
that
obey
him
:
So
contrarily
he
that
disobeyeth
the
Church
in
one
onely
thing
he
is
accursed
according
to
the
wordes
of
Christ
him
helfe
,
if
he
will
not
heare
the
Church
let
him
be
vnto
to
the
,
like
an
Ethnike
or
Publican
.
And
according
to
this
the
Romanists
may
bouldly
say
they
are
accursed
whoe
deny
all
merit
in
workes
proceeding
from
the
grace
of
God
,
it
is
a
pernicious
prouertie
to
want
merits
,
&
yet
especially
at
the
houre
of
their
death
for
humilitie
with
the
same
S.
Bernard
put
all
their
confidence
in
the
mercy
of
God
;
that
which
the
Romanists
doe
much
more
then
the
reformers
,
notobstanding
their
defence
of
meritorious
workes
.
They
are
accursed
whoe
otherwise
then
Christ
tought
or
affirmed
,
teach
&
affirme
it
vnlawfull
for
the
laitye
to
communicate
in
one
kynde
:
And
they
blessed
whoe
with
Christ
&
his
Church
take
it
for
a
thing
indifferent
of
it selfe
to
receiue
in
one
or
both
kyndes
,
&
stand
to
the
ordinance
of
the
most
vniuersall
Church
without
contention
,
according
to
the
difference
of
times
,
places
,
&
persons
.
They
are
accursed
whoe
being
vnlearned
read
scriptures
&
interpret
them
falsely
for
the
maintenance
of
their
errours
,
according
to
that
of
S.
Peter
saying
:
They
are
accursed
whoe
either
prohibit
mariage
or
meates
as
ill
in
them selues
as
some
ancient
heretikes
did
,
or
absteine
not
frome
them
both
at
such
times
&
in
such
cases
as
God
&
his
Church
ordaineth
them
to
absteine
:
And
they
are
blessed
whoe
according
to
the
order
of
the
Church
directed
by
the
spirit
of
God
remaine
with
S.
Paule
vnmaried
,
&
refaine
from
eating
flesh
at
such
times
as
the
same
Church
appointeth
.
Those
are
accursed
for
contemning
of
Christ
in
his
Church
,
whoe
contrary
to
her
appointment
,
doe
schismatically
administer
the
publike
seruice
&
Sacraments
in
the
vulgar
tongue
,
erroneously
defending
the
same
to
be
commaunded
by
the
scriptures
:
&
blessed
are
those
whoe
for
reuerence
to
the
holy
scriptures
&
conseruation
of
the
dignity
of
the
diuine
offices
,
&
other
iust
reasons
,
hould
it
fitting
to
administer
publike
seruice
&
Sacraments
in
a
language
most
common
to
all
nations
,
to
wit
in
the
Latin
tongue
.
They
are
accursed
whoe
loue
Christ
&
his
Saints
so
little
as
they
accounte
it
idolatrie
,
&
contrary
to
the
scriptures
to
honore
their
images
,
notobstanding
ther
is
no
place
of
scripture
truly
interpreted
to
be
founde
against
them
:
&
those
are
blessed
according
to
the
same
scriptures
whoe
to
shewe
their
exterordinarie
affection
to
Christ
,
duely
reuerence
both
the
images
of
him
&
his
blessed
seruants
.
They
are
accursed
that
refuse
either
to
adore
Christs
bodie
whersoeuer
he
affirmeth
it
to
bee
,
or
account
it
idolatrie
or
superstition
to
honore
the
Saints
who
he
him selfe
saith
he
honoreth
with
a
crowne
of
glorie
:
&
blessed
are
they
that
performe
his
pleasure
in
both
by
adoring
his
pretious
bodie
&
blood
in
the
sacrament
,
&
by
honoring
his
Saints
in
Heauen
where
he
doth
honour
them
as
his
seruants
&
freinds
.
They
are
accursed
who
contrary
to
scripture
reiect
such
ancient
traditions
as
the
most
vniuersall
Church
approueth
:
&
blessed
are
those
who
with
due
obedience
obserue
the
same
.
Accursed
are
they
who
reiect
charitie
frome
the
formall
cause
of
iustification
,
Maior
autem
horum
est
charitas
.
1.
Cor.
13.
which
notobstanding
according
to
the
Apostle
,
is
greater
then
either
hope
or
faith
:
&
blessed
are
they
who
admit
it
in
iustification
as
well
as
faith
&
preferre
it
before
faith
with
the
same
Apostle
.
Accursed
are
they
that
by
denying
with
the
Iewes
the
bookes
of
the
Machabies
to
be
Canonicall
scriptures
,
denie
Purgatory
&
prayer
for
the
soules
departed
:
&
blessed
are
they
who
with
the
Church
&
S.
Augustin
hould
the
foresayd
bookes
for
canonicall
scripture
,
&
say
with
him
it
is
an
vndoubted
thing
that
prayer
doth
profit
the
dead
.
And
in
this
manner
,
if
need
were
I
could
passe
throu'
all
the
rest
of
the
points
of
controuerted
doctrine
,
&
easily
showe
the
curse
to
fall
vpon
the
misreformed
brothers
for
their
obstinacie
&
disobedience
to
God
&
his
Church
.
Sir
Humfrey
would
faine
seeme
to
beare
a
charitable
minde
towardes
the
Romanists
in
regarde
he
saith
,
he
dares
not
pronounce
damnation
vpon
their
persons
,
and
yet
he
proclaimeth
confidently
&
openly
to
the
whole
world
that
their
doctrine
is
damnable
,
to
which
it
is
necessarily
consequent
that
all
such
as
die
obstinately
in
it
are
directly
damned
:
&
so
if
Sir
Humfrey
proceeds
consequenter
to
this
his
tenet
,
he
must
necessity
iudge
the
same
of
at
the
least
in
generall
of
those
which
dye
in
the
foresaid
obstinate
manner
&
with
out
inuincible
ignorance
end
their
liues
in
it
.
But
if
this
be
that
which
he
calls
greater
charitie
them
Romanists
haue
,
&
all
the
fauour
he
doth
vs
,
we
thanke
him
not
for
it
,
&
such
charitie
he
may
better
reserue
to
himselfe
&
his
brothers
who
in
my
opinion
haue
no
more
than
they
can
spare
.
And
if
this
be
all
the
difference
which
can
be
founde
betwixt
the
proceeding
of
the
Romanists
&
the
reformers
in
this
particular
,
then
I
say
that
notwithstanding
Sir
Humfrey
much
laboureth
to
make
his
reader
beleeue
that
he
&
his
reformed
brothers
are
more
charitable
than
the
Romanists
in
iudging
of
the
state
of
the
soules
of
such
as
departe
in
each
religion
:
neuerthelesse
it
is
manifest
he
quite
faileth
of
his
intent
:
supposing
that
the
Romanists
doe
not
vse
to
iudge
but
rather
suspend
their
iudgment
of
particular
persons
,
except
they
haue
some
speciall
reasons
prudently
&
morally
to
persuade
themselues
that
this
or
that
partie
died
in
actuall
obstinacie
&
defence
of
his
erroneous
faith
,
otherwise
their
censure
is
onely
conditionall
or
a
generall
&
abstractiue
manner
.
It
is
trrue
he
graunteth
that
some
of
his
doctours
affirme
that
a
Papist
may
be
saued
,
but
he
deliuereth
his
owne
glosse
vpon
it
saying
it
is
ment
onelie
by
inuincible
ignorance
,
&
so
by
his
owne
commentarie
he
corrupted
the
whole
text
.
And
if
this
be
the
best
construction
his
charitie
can
afford
wee
will
thanke
him
for
it
as
much
is
it
deserueth
.
Neuerthelesse
it
is
no
matter
what
either
Sir
Humfrey
or
his
fellowes
say
in
this
point
,
wee
esteeme
not
so
much
of
there
iudgements
as
to
frame
out
of
them
,
anie
rule
for
the
safe
way
of
saluation
:
for
this
rule
,
wee
had
long
before
their
Church
was
built
wee
had
it
frome
the
way
maker
him selfe
.
And
I
tell
you
by
the
way
Sir
Humfrey
that
if
any
of
your
Church
be
saued
in
the
manner
I
haue
declared
in
the
begining
of
this
Period
,
they
are
absolutely
said
to
be
saued
in
our
Church
not
in
yours
,
thoguh
exteriorlie
they
liue
&
dye
in
yours
.
And
so
to
conclud
,
if
you
will
not
permit
the
Romanists
to
drawe
an
argument
from
the
confession
of
some
of
your
authours
,
but
will
needs
affirme
with
your
greatest
doctour
&
Arch
Puritan
whitaker
,
that
vpon
his
worde
ther
is
not
one
Papist
to
be
founde
in
Heauen
,
I
for
my
parte
vpon
condition
you
brag
not
of
a
victorie
as
you
vse
to
doe
,
I
will
not
contend
with
you
,
but
as
in
a
matter
neither
of
faith
,
nor
yet
of
anie
great
consequence
supposing
your
owne
peruerse
glosses
,
I
leaue
you
to
your
owne
sense
,
as
also
I
doe
those
Romanists
whoe
vsed
that
argument
against
some
of
their
aduersaries
.
THE
XVII
.
PERIOD
.
SIr
Humfrey
hath
played
the
Iacke
so
long
that
in
this
his
last
section
he
playeth
Iacke
on
both
sides
,
telling
vs
in
the
title
that
he
intendeth
to
showe
that
the
Protestant
religion
is
safer
by
the
confession
of
both
parties
,
that
is
,
both
of
Romanists
&
Reformers
.
But
I
knowe
not
to
what
end
he
made
this
section
except
is
was
onely
to
make
the
number
of
his
sections
euen
,
for
I
finde
nothing
in
it
but
a
new
repetition
of
old
matters
so
often
alredy
inculcated
that
my
eares
are
wearie
to
heare
them
.
And
if
Sir
Humfrey
was
disposed
to
playe
in
the
number
,
he
ought
rather
to
haue
made
choise
of
the
od
number
them
of
the
euen
as
being
in
the
Poets
opinion
more
pleasing
to
God
,
Deus
numero
inpare
gaudet
.
But
let
this
passe
,
for
how
soeuer
hee
doth
,
I
for
my
parte
desire
not
to
stand
vpon
numbers
but
vpon
substance
.
If
he
had
brought
either
newe
matter
,
or
at
the
least
,
some
new
proofe
of
the
old
,
it
might
perhaps
haue
ben
worth
the
labour
to
examen
it
,
but
I
finde
onely
old
matter
&
newe
equiuocations
,
sleights
,
&
falsities
,
&
these
onely
I
will
breefely
discusse
.
But
the
whole
drift
of
the
knight
in
this
his
last
section
is
,
as
he
saith
him selfe
,
to
make
good
the
title
of
his
booke
,
which
is
that
therfore
hee
&
his
fellowes
are
in
the
safer
way
because
quotteth
he
,
the
Romanists
agree
with
vs
in
the
principall
points
of
doctrine
:
&
because
that
is
the
safer
way
wherin
differing
partes
ioyne
both
in
one
,
&
this
I
hould
to
be
the
substance
of
his
whole
discourse
if
anie
ther
were
to
be
founde
in
it
.
First
therefore
he
telleth
vs
great
newes
to
wit
that
there
is
a
Heauen
&
a
hell
,
in
the
beleefe
of
which
,
sayth
hee
,
wee
both
agree
,
&
thence
he
concludeth
that
this
is
the
safer
way
because
both
sides
ioine
in
it
.
But
this
,
if
you
marke
it
,
is
meere
Sophistrie
,
for
in
stead
of
a
whole
way
both
in
this
particular
and
in
the
rest
of
the
points
of
controuersie
he
passeth
throu'
in
this
section
,
he
sheweth
but
a
peece
of
a
way
.
The
whole
way
which
he
ought
to
shewe
in
this
one
point
is
the
reformers
beleefe
of
heauen
&
hell
&
their
denyall
of
Purgatory
&
limbus
,
Now
Sir
Humfrey
putteth
in
truly
the
first
parte
of
his
way
to
wit
,
the
reformers
beleefe
of
heauen
&
hell
,
(
how
true
this
is
I
knowe
not
)
but
he
leaueth
out
deceitfullie
the
second
parte
of
the
way
viz.
the
Reformers
beleefe
in
the
denyall
of
Purgatorie
&
Limbus
,
&
so
as
I
sayd
before
in
stead
of
the
whole
way
he
sheweth
but
a
peece
,
which
peece
altho'
it
be
supposed
to
be
neuer
so
safe
,
yet
it
will
not
serue
the
turne
to
bring
a
man
to
his
iourneys
end
,
nor
yealdeth
him
anie
more
certaintie
or
saftie
in
his
way
then
he
that
should
tell
one
who
is
vpon
his
iourney
to
yorke
,
that
his
safest
way
is
to
goe
from
London
to
Islinton
,
&
there
should
leaue
him
to
shifte
for
himselfe
for
his
directions
in
the
rest
of
the
way
,
in
which
case
certaine
it
is
the
traueller
should
be
little
or
nothing
obledged
to
him
who
shewes
him
that
parte
of
the
way
onelie
which
all
the
world
knoweth
.
And
the
trueth
is
that
Sir
Humfrey
argueth
in
this
whole
matter
as
if
he
should
say
of
himselfe
&
his
fellow
reformers
,
we
&
the
Turkes
agree
in
the
creed
of
one
God
&
differ
in
the
beleefe
of
Christ
the
Messias
,
therefore
it
is
the
safer
way
to
beleeue
onelie
in
one
God
in
which
wee
all
agree
,
then
to
beleeue
in
God
&
Christ
too
,
in
which
wee
stand
single
.
Euen
so
concludeth
the
knight
of
the
faith
of
Purgatorie
,
Limbus
,
&
the
rest
of
the
points
in
controuersy
which
he
particularizeth
in
the
discourse
of
this
section
,
arguing
no
otherwise
then
in
this
absurde
manner
.
Neyther
is
it
,
ô
Sir
Humfrey
,
our
standing
single
by
our selues
,
or
double
with
you
that
eyther
maketh
or
marreth
either
the
faith
of
Purgatorie
,
or
anie
other
article
of
the
Roman
doctrine
as
you
falselie
&
fallaciouslie
suppose
in
your
argument
:
But
scriptures
,
generall
Councells
,
Fathers
&
the
authoritie
of
the
most
vniuersall
Church
are
the
pilars
vpon
which
the
house
of
our
faith
is
built
.
And
as
for
your
ioyning
with
vs
in
anie
one
article
,
or
els
in
the
generall
assertion
of
some
of
your
authours
that
wee
may
be
saued
in
our
Church
,
how
soeuer
it
may
seeme
to
some
to
be
a
confirmation
of
our
faith
,
yet
it
is
not
anie
parte
of
the
foundation
of
our
faith
,
but
onelie
a
kynde
of
morall
argument
or
motiue
that
we
are
in
the
safer
way
because
euen
some
of
our
aduersaries
themselues
hould
we
may
be
saued
in
it
.
But
yet
as
this
alone
,
if
otherwise
we
did
faile
in
the
true
grounds
of
our
faith
themselues
,
can
not
be
a
sufficient
proofe
that
we
are
in
the
safer
way
then
you
,
so
ought
it
not
to
be
a
sufficient
proofe
that
you
are
in
the
safer
way
because
we
agree
with
you
in
some
parte
of
your
doctrine
.
Especiallie
considering
you
faile
in
the
cheefe
grounds
of
your
faith
as
hath
ben
shewed
partelie
in
my
this
censure
,
&
partelie
by
other
Catholike
diuines
in
their
seuerall
workes
.
And
if
anie
argument
for
the
greater
safetie
of
your
way
could
be
drawne
from
our
agreement
with
you
in
some
points
of
faith
,
so
in
like
manner
might
we
deduce
a
proofe
of
the
greater
saftie
of
our
way
from
the
certaintie
of
those
points
of
faith
in
which
you
agree
with
vs
,
all
which
is
but
nugatorie
,
friuolous
,
&
absurd
in
regarde
that
as
,
a
parte
ad
totum
,
from
a
parte
to
the
whole
no
lawfull
deduction
can
be
made
,
so
neyther
can
it
be
inferred
that
because
one
parte
of
the
obiect
of
a
mans
faith
is
true
,
therefore
the
whole
obiect
of
is
faith
is
true
by
reason
that
notobstanding
one
parte
of
the
obiect
be
true
,
yet
there
may
be
in
the
whole
obiect
or
matter
trueth
&
falsitie
mixed
together
,
of
which
we
haue
instances
both
in
diuine
&
humane
matters
.
And
more
then
this
,
Sir
Humfrey
must
giue
vs
licence
to
tell
him
that
he
was
to
forward
in
the
proofe
of
his
tenet
.
For
before
he
went
aboute
to
proue
his
way
to
be
safer
then
ours
,
he
ought
first
to
haue
conuinced
his
owne
way
to
be
a
true
&
perfect
way
,
&
not
to
haue
giuen
his
reader
a
parte
for
the
whole
by
a
false
Senecdoche
,
or
contrarie
to
the
Grammer
rules
to
obtrude
vpon
him
a
comparatiue
without
a
positiue
,
that
is
a
safer
way
were
no
way
is
to
be
found
at
all
,
or
at
the
least
no
safe
&
intyre
way
.
And
yet
more
ouer
it
is
to
be
obserued
that
besides
those
positiue
points
of
doctrine
in
which
he
sayth
that
both
partes
agree
,
there
be
also
diuers
negatiues
which
they
quite
distinguish
one
from
an
other
,
which
negatiues
neuerthelesse
are
parte
of
the
reformers
faith
as
well
as
their
positiue
doctrine
,
&
so
in
this
parte
of
their
Creed
they
stand
single
as
well
as
we
,
&
consequentlie
if
standing
single
,
as
he
auerreth
or
at
the
least
supposeth
,
doth
hinder
the
safetie
of
our
way
,
the
same
effect
it
must
of
necessitie
haue
in
theirs
,
&
according
to
this
ground
of
Sir
Humfreys
it
is
manifest
that
the
reformers
can
neuer
haue
the
safer
way
till
we
ioyne
with
them
in
euerie
point
thereof
by
that
meanes
to
hinder
their
single
standing
,
which
yet
we
assure
our selues
will
neuer
come
to
passe
,
except
God
almightie
reduce
them
to
vs
from
whome
they
once
departed
,
as
we
greatlie
desire
&
daylie
praye
.
And
according
to
this
wee
may
breeflie
ansere
to
all
the
rest
of
the
instances
which
the
knight
produceth
.
And
so
we
Romanists
confesse
we
stand
with
the
reformers
in
the
affirmation
of
heauen
&
hell
,
but
we
stand
not
with
them
in
the
deniall
of
Purgatorie
&
limbus
.
We
stand
with
them
in
the
affirmation
of
the
merits
and
satisfactions
of
Iesus
Christ
:
But
we
stand
not
with
them
in
the
negation
of
the
merits
&
satisfactions
of
those
that
liue
in
the
grace
of
God
,
&
by
the
virtue
of
the
same
&
the
cooperation
of
their
owne
free
will
,
performe
good
workes
of
charitie
,
mercie
,
iustice
,
&
the
like
,
houlding
for
certaine
with
S.
Augustin
that
he
who
created
vs
without
vs
,
will
not
saue
vs
without
vs
:
yet
further
assuring
our selues
that
God
doth
not
operate
with
bests
&
men
both
in
one
manner
.
We
stand
with
them
in
the
defence
of
Baptisme
&
Eucharist
so
farre
as
they
Orthodoxlie
maintainte
them
,
but
we
stand
not
with
them
in
the
impugnation
of
the
other
fiue
Sacraments
.
We
stand
with
them
in
that
they
affirme
that
the
images
of
Christ
&
his
Saints
are
ornaments
&
memorialls
of
the
absent
:
but
we
stand
not
with
them
in
their
denyall
of
due
honour
to
be
exhibited
vnto
them
for
the
great
loue
&
reuerence
we
beare
to
Christ
&
his
Saints
.
We
stand
with
them
in
the
defence
of
the
diuine
worship
of
God
:
but
we
stand
not
with
them
in
the
denyall
of
intercessiue
inuocation
&
honour
of
his
Saints
.
We
stand
with
them
in
that
Christ
is
the
prime
mediator
betwixt
God
&
man
:
but
we
stand
not
with
them
in
their
denyall
of
the
secondarie
mediators
,
or
intercessors
which
are
his
seruants
&
frends
.
We
stand
with
them
in
that
Christ
is
head
Monarch
of
the
whole
Church
triumphant
&
militant
:
but
we
stand
not
with
them
in
their
denyall
of
the
visible
&
Vicarious
head
the
Pope
or
cheefe
pastour
of
the
visible
Church
in
earth
subordinate
&
subiet
to
Christ
in
the
gouernement
of
the
same
.
We
will
not
refuse
to
stand
with
them
in
that
they
graunt
that
S.
Peter
had
a
Primacie
of
Order
:
but
we
stand
not
with
then
in
that
they
denie
his
Primacie
of
power
&
Iurisdiction
.
We
stand
with
them
in
that
they
teach
there
are
22.
bookes
of
Canonicall
scripture
:
but
we
stand
not
with
them
in
the
refusall
of
the
booke
of
Tobie
,
Iudith
,
two
first
bookes
of
Machabees
,
the
booke
of
wisdome
,
Esdras
&
Baruch
the
Prophet
.
We
stand
with
them
in
that
they
affirme
the
scripture
is
the
rule
of
faith
:
But
we
stand
not
with
them
in
their
denyall
of
diuine
traditions
,
not
properly
added
to
the
scriptures
but
commended
by
them
&
included
in
them
in
a
general
manner
.
We
stand
with
them
in
that
they
say
there
are
twelue
articles
of
the
Creed
:
But
we
stand
not
with
them
in
their
denyall
of
the
rest
of
the
doctrine
defined
in
generall
Councells
:
as
neither
doe
we
ioyne
with
them
in
the
defence
of
all
the
39.
Articles
of
the
English
faith
or
Creed
.
And
so
now
by
these
particulars
the
iudicious
reader
may
euidentlie
perceiue
that
by
reason
the
Romanists
agree
with
the
knight
onelie
in
some
parte
or
partiall
of
his
doctrine
,
he
could
not
possible
proue
by
their
confessions
the
greater
safetie
of
his
way
,
as
both
in
the
title
of
this
his
last
section
,
&
also
in
the
title
of
his
whole
booke
he
did
propose
.
Nay
he
is
so
farre
from
the
proofe
of
this
,
that
he
hath
most
apparentlie
fayled
in
the
proofe
of
the
verie
argument
of
his
whole
worke
which
to
the
end
it
may
more
plainelie
appeare
I
will
reduce
to
this
Sylogisme
.
That
faith
is
the
safe
way
leading
all
Christians
to
the
true
,
ancient
&
Catholike
faith
,
which
is
proued
by
the
confessions
&
testimonies
of
the
best
learned
Romanists
to
haue
ben
visible
in
all
ages
especiallie
before
the
dayes
of
Luther
.
But
the
faith
now
professed
in
the
Church
of
England
,
is
proued
by
the
confessions
&
testimonies
of
the
best
learned
Romanists
to
haue
ben
visible
in
all
ages
especiallie
before
the
dayes
of
Luther
.
Therefore
the
faith
now
professed
in
the
Church
of
England
is
the
safe
way
leading
all
Christians
to
the
true
,
ancient
,
&
Catholike
faith
.
Now
there
being
contained
in
the
minor
of
this
Sylogisme
the
whole
argument
,
purpose
,
&
drift
of
Sir
Humfreys
whole
booke
,
&
yet
neuerthelesse
it
hauing
ben
by
mee
in
this
my
censure
demonstrated
not
to
haue
ben
proued
and
made
good
by
anie
argument
by
him
produced
,
all
he
produceth
to
that
purpose
being
voyde
of
force
as
by
the
discussion
of
the
particulars
of
euerie
section
the
reader
may
easilie
vnderstand
,
it
followeth
by
a
necessarie
sequele
that
his
way
can
not
be
safe
,
but
is
to
be
auoyded
with
most
great
care
&
circumspection
as
a
false
&
erroneous
path
,
by
all
those
that
tender
the
safetie
of
their
soules
&
eternall
Saluation
.
And
thus
hauing
now
resolued
the
man
into
his
principles
or
prime
matter
I
meane
into
the
dust
&
ashes
which
he
casteth
in
his
reader
eyes
:
&
hauing
passed
throu'
all
the
passages
of
his
imaginarie
safe
way
,
I
haue
founde
it
&
shewed
it
to
be
no
way
at
all
,
but
an
intricate
diuerticle
or
obscure
path
leading
pore
distressed
trauellers
quite
out
of
the
true
royall
street
with
an
impossibilite
euer
to
come
to
the
end
of
their
iourney
,
that
is
to
the
true
ancient
Catholike
faith
,
which
faith
altho'
the
knight
both
in
the
title
of
his
booke
&
in
diuers
other
places
of
it
,
hath
seriouslie
promised
to
shew
it
to
be
the
same
which
is
now
professed
in
England
,
euen
by
the
confession
of
the
Romanists
yet
haue
I
made
it
manifest
that
no
true
Romanist
that
is
no
authour
which
is
acknowledged
by
the
Roman
Church
for
a
member
of
the
same
,
did
either
in
generall
or
in
particular
euer
confesse
the
foresaid
faith
of
England
to
be
the
ancient
Catholike
faith
,
or
that
did
euer
,
absolutelie
&
in
the
same
sense
in
which
the
reformed
Churches
doe
,
defende
anie
one
article
of
the
pretensiue
reformed
doctrine
in
matter
of
faith
or
generallie
defined
manners
.
In
regard
of
which
&
because
my
cheefe
intent
was
when
I
first
resolued
to
vndertake
this
busines
out
of
a
tender
compassion
to
free
the
readers
from
the
great
&
generall
delusion
which
I
vnderstood
this
pamphlet
of
Sir
Humfreys
had
caused
,
or
might
hereafter
cause
in
the
myndes
of
manie
,
&
especiallie
the
more
vnlearned
sorte
of
people
,
altho'
in
verie
truth
in
itselfe
it
containeth
nothing
worth
the
labour
of
a
scholler
,
I
doe
now
aduertice
them
as
they
esteeme
the
saftie
of
their
soules
,
to
beware
of
it
as
of
a
shop
of
most
deceitelie
&
poysonous
drugges
of
which
they
can
not
safety
taste
without
an
antidote
,
I
meane
the
illiterate
or
vnexperienced
persons
in
this
kynde
of
studie
,
can
not
securelie
reade
the
the
booke
except
with
all
they
view
the
aduerse
parte
,
&
so
by
detection
of
the
authours
fraudes
,
&
couning
deceipts
they
behould
the
truth
discouered
,
which
otherwise
as
being
most
subtillie
inuolued
&
mixed
by
him
with
abundance
of
plausible
vntruthes
,
equiuocations
,
false
suppositions
&
Sophismes
,
can
hardlie
be
founde
out
euen
by
those
of
greater
learning
&
capacitie
then
ordinarilie
the
laytie
vse
to
be
.
And
as
for
Sir
Humfrey
him selfe
,
altho'
I
haue
smale
hope
of
his
reclamation
in
regard
of
the
great
arrogancy
which
I
perceiue
in
him
,
as
being
mightily
blinded
with
the
vanity
of
his
owne
conceite
,